I read in the paper the other day about a young 11-year-old girl who was sexually assaulted.  Initially the story sounded horrific.

But I read on and apparently she went to a house with a girl friend, for the purpose of giving oral sex to a couple of guys.  Turns out she serviced like 20 guys.  The gist of the story was that she was NOT forced to do any of this.  Apparently her 16-year-old cousin coacher her how to do it right.

Now here is my question.  The papers keep referring to this as an "assault" by recipients of the BJ's.

Now mind you, those guys who ranged in age from 15 to 20 are all scum bags big time, and no doubt this falls under the "statutory rape" clause.  But somehow to call it an "assault" seems inappropriate.  Criminal, statutory, corruption of minor,,, yes.  Assault? No.  Maybe a subtle difference...

What say you?

Yes, of course it's assault!  Eleven years old?  They are obviously confused, and I will bet the girl and her cousin have been sexually molested numerous times before.  I don't care if it seems they went with the intention to commit the acts.  Eleven is not the age of consent.

Sometimes I think this country is shattering into a thousand pieces.
::)

You're actually asking if an 11 year old performing sex acts on men is assault? 

You're actually asking if an 11 year old performing sex acts on men is assault? 


o, they're saying that the men were assaulting HER.

My point is that this was criminal under statutory laws, no question there.  But to say the guys "assaulted" her seems to be a misnomer.

o, they're saying that the men were assaulting HER.

My point is that this was criminal under statutory laws, no question there.  But to say the guys "assaulted" her seems to be a misnomer.

There is as much mental and physical development between the ages of six and eleven as there is between the ages of eleven and sixteen.  If the she was a sixteen year old young woman, I would still call it a frightful case of social values gone straight to hell, but if the girl declared in court she exercised premeditation and full consent of her will, I would be a little more lenient on those men, if I was the judge.  An eleven year old is still essentially a child.  I notice girls developing much faster physically nowadays, but biology and muturity are not one in the same.  What would you say if the girl was six or eight?
::)
If you want to change the age of consent to eleven, LB, I suggest you found NAMGLA (North American Man-Girl Love Association).  Heck, just write your congressman.  Until you change the law, an eleven year old cannot consent to sex.  I hope the throw the book at those a-holes!  What about the girl?  She'll be in therapy for a long, long time.  On the other hand, she might just become the next Traci Lords!
I would be inclined to charge the sixteen-year-old cousin with aiding and abetting, and facilitating delinquency, or something in juvenile court.  She ought to know better.  Moreover, they need to find out why she thought that was a cool thing to do.

I see an upsurge of prostitution and quasi-prostitution (such as exotic dancing and porno) among younger and younger women.  Remeber, in the London streets of Victorian Britain, fifteen-year-old girls sold their bodies for a loaf of bread.  I think this is a symptom of laissez-faire capitalism and imperialism.  It's the deterioration of social mobility, social values, and economic opportunity all acting in accordance.

There is as much mental and physical development between the ages of six and eleven as there is between the ages of eleven and sixteen.  If the she was a sixteen year old young woman, I would still call it a frightful case of social values gone straight to hell, but if the girl declared in court she exercised premeditation and full consent of her will, I would be a little more lenient on those men, if I was the judge.  An eleven year old is still essentially a child.  I notice girls developing much faster physically nowadays, but biology and muturity are not one in the same.  What would you say if the girl was six or eight?
::)
If you want to change the age of consent to eleven, LB, I suggest you found NAMGLA (North American Man-Girl Love Association).  Heck, just write your congressman.  Until you change the law, an eleven year old cannot consent to sex.  I hope the throw the book at those a-holes!  What about the girl?  She'll be in therapy for a long, long time.  On the other hand, she might just become the next Traci Lords!
I would be inclined to charge the sixteen-year-old cousin with aiding and abetting, and facilitating delinquency, or something in juvenile court.  She ought to know better.  Moreover, they need to find out why she thought that was a cool thing to do.

I see an upsurge of prostitution and quasi-prostitution (such as exotic dancing and porno) among younger and younger women.  Remeber, in the London streets of Victorian Britain, fifteen-year-old girls sold their bodies for a loaf of bread.  I think this is a symptom of laissez-faire capitalism and imperialism.  It's the deterioration of social mobility, social values, and economic opportunity all acting in accordance.



I was going to say, uprises in said activities have occurred periodically through history due to rising poverty levels and deterioration of social mobility, as you mentioned. The economic decline of the nation's inner cities in the Johnson and Nixon eras led to the explosion of prostitution among young African-American women in the 1970s, for example. By the mid-1970s, Times Square and the vicinity was carpeted nightly by thousands of young black women in hideous costumes selling their bodies.

I'm confused.....what does an 11 year old sucking men off at the behest of her 16 year old cousin have to do with capitalism? 



Aren't you reading a TAD too much into this? 

Yes, of course it's assault!  Eleven years old?  They are obviously confused, and I will bet the girl and her cousin have been sexually molested numerous times before.  I don't care if it seems they went with the intention to commit the acts.  Eleven is not the age of consent.

Sometimes I think this country is shattering into a thousand pieces.
::)


  Yeah, I agree...

  An assault is an unwanted and/or unlawful "attack" on a person.  Since, technically, a minor is legally unable to consent to the act described above (regardless of her wishes), could be prosecuted as a sexual assault.  That's not to say that the suspects couldn't be charged with a truck load of other violations go ;)...

I'm confused.....what does an 11 year old sucking men off at the behest of her 16 year old cousin have to do with capitalism? 



Aren't you reading a TAD too much into this? 


Max is saying that growing economic disparity is increasing prostituon and similar activties among young women.  Its not directly related to this particular case, but its not a totally disimilar topic. The part of his post about this incident was a segway into his observation about this.

Also, you should read Herman's post. He adds much more detail to Max's observation.

Max is saying that growing economic disparity is increasing prostituon and similar activties among young women.  Its not directly related to this particular case, but its not a totally disimilar topic. The part of his post about this incident was a segway into his observation about this.

Also, you should read Herman's post. He adds much more detail to Max's observation.



I did read them both.  Don't assume I didn't.

I did read them both.  Don't assume I didn't.


Sorry but I must when your reply sounds like you didn't.

Sorry but I must when your reply sounds like you didn't.



Yeah well, you were wrong. 


This is an 11 year old CHILD sucking off MEN at the behest of her 16 year old cousin.  It's disgusting and it's depraved.  Isn't that all that really needs to be said?  I know that young girls are becoming more and more sexually active.....I see it a lot and my sister went to middle school and high school with these girls.

Yeah well, you were wrong. 


This is an 11 year old CHILD sucking off MEN at the behest of her 16 year old cousin.  It's disgusting and it's depraved.  Isn't that all that really needs to be said?  I know that young girls are becoming more and more sexually active.....I see it a lot and my sister went to middle school and high school with these girls.


I agree, thoroughly depraved and I hope that those "men" get the book thrown at them.

The point of my posting is I do not see this as an "assault", however depraved.  Assault implies violence done by one on another, or the THREAT of violence.  From what I have read so far in the papers, there was no element of violence or threat of violence here.

I see this as statutory rape and NOT assault.  Don't know why I have a bee in my grammatical bonnet on this one.

Max is saying that growing economic disparity is increasing prostituon and similar activties among young women.  Its not directly related to this particular case, but its not a totally disimilar topic. The part of his post about this incident was a segway into his observation about this.

Also, you should read Herman's post. He adds much more detail to Max's observation.

The travesties of the '60s and '70s that led to the rampant prositution in Times Square is not due to New Deal/Great Society programs, as the Right would have you believe.  Neither were the atrocious public housing projects that arose post-war are now being razed nation-wide.  The old saying goes, "the best welfare program is a job."  This is true.  However, the demands of laissez-faire capitalism called for de-industrialization, union-busting, p*ss-poor wages, and off-shoring to the cheapest labor.  The capitalists did not want to invest in the people.  Furthermore, the capitalists who owned the politicians did not want the government to invest in the people either.  So what are the people supposed to do?  That question leads to the Reagan/Limbaugh inanities about "indiviual initiative" and "start your own business."  You try getting a bank loan when you've got twenty bucks to your name!  So people started the businesses they could start--criminal syndicalism, drugs, and prostitution.

There was a popular book, The Millionaire Next Door.  More like the crock of sh*t next door!  Contrary to Reagan mythology, laissez-faire capitalism does not lead to "the millionaire next door."  Laissez-faire inevitably leads to:
"May I have another lump of coal, Mr. Scrooge?"
"Nooooo! You may not!  It costs a pence!"
(As Thom Hartmann is fond of putting it.)

Thus, you see college girls offering BJs on craigslist in order to pay for their books!

The Christian Right denies all economic arguments and points the finger squarely at "values."  I can only refute this partially because it's partially true.

----------

You had the "sexual revolution."  Immediately, you had the capitalist appropriation of the sexual revolution.  This started rather innocuously with Hugh Hefner.  Sexuality and capitalism are a bad mix.  The "sexual revolution" started at Smith and Berkeley in order to free women from the shackles of patrarchy.  Women should be sexually free.  Women should own their sexuality.  Fine, but it immediately went awry.  "Sex sells" is a truism.  Ad-men and capitalists saw dollar signs.  Now free from the repression and censorship held over from the Victorian era, marketers went to work.  Sex became a commodity.  Women's bodies became commodities.  There was nothing more profitable for ad-men than the sexual revolution.  Who paid the price?  Women.  Women became even more the sex objects the feminists fought to prevent.  
1972.  "Deep Throat." "Porno chic."  Hardcore pornography became legitimized in the '70s.  It took the popularization of home video, and then the Internet, to make pornography what it is today.  It matches in profit the rest of the entertainment industry.

THE MEDIUM IS THE MESSAGE
--Marshall McLuahan.

Porn-soaked culture.  Twenty years ago you had militant feminists who hated everything Ronald Reagan stood for testifying as friendly witnesses for the Meese anti-porn commission.  MacKinnon and Dworkin were screeching for censorship like a couple of Victorian schoolmarms.  I didn't agree, but I could see what they were saying.  The cultural phenomenon incurring their wrath has increased  a hundred fold in two decades. Media aimed at the youth demographic takes its cues from pornography.  It sells.   What the hell is an eleven year old or a sixteen year old supposed think when all the media they consume says: "You are a sex object.  You are there to please men.  Do your job."  

WOMEN WOULD NEVER STEER US WRONG!

How do they get to the girl and young woman who thinks analytically?  Deceit.  Annie Sprinkle: "Sluts and Goddesses."  Veronica Hart: "The Naked Feminist."  Camille Paglia: "If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts"; "Beauty is our weapon against nature."
Pro-feminist treatises on pornography: "exotic dancing is empowering."  "porn stars are feminist figures because the own their sexuality."  Bunny Ranch girls:  "All women should try a career in prostitution."   Intentionally or not, the pro-porn, pro-prostitution pseudo-feminists set a trap for brainy gals, and they fell right into it.

Two friends of mine both from upper middle class backgrounds worked as strippers in college.  One wrote a masters thesis at Barnard on "Sexual Harrassment in the Workplace."  She declared to me she was no hypocrite, a man had no right--no right--to make a lewd remark to her at work, but if she wanted to wave her genitals in men's faces for dollar bills, that was her choice.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_scratch.gif
Gosh.  I couldn't disagree.  I mean, I really couldn't.  No, not with the extant argument...but there's something that, uh, just doesn't make a lot of sense here.  Unlike the girls on craigslist offering their services for books and rent, neither of these women needed the money.  Daddy was footing the bill.  But you know, it takes a lot of dough to keep yourself in designer gear!  So it cuts both ways.  Necessity and values.  Some say they can earn more in an evening at the strip club than they could in a month of waiting tables.  You can change the rhetoric, but you can't beat the dogma:  "You are a sex object.  You are there to please men.  Do your job."  The message from Annie Sprinkle and Camille Paglia wasn't liberal.  It was Orwellian.

TRICKLE DOWN PROPAGANDA

This eleven-year-old and her sixteen-year-old cousin were probably not at the university library reading "Neo-Feminist" articles in scholarly journals.  Most likely they were watching MTV and internet porn.  Young girls don't have any positive female role models.  Girls don't want to listen to the scolding puritans of the Christian Right.  Who does?, a return to the 19th century is not the answer anyway.  So they're left with the messages of pornography, and porn as echoed in the commercial media.  "Liberal" women have become unmoored.  They are adrift in a sea of duplicity.  "Well, rape and sexual harrassment are very bad...but you should celebrate your sexuality.  You know, just as long as everything is consensual, it's fine.  No one should make you be a 'ho, but if that's what you want, follow your bliss."  With only the mush-mindedness that passes for feminism nowadays to combat the ceaseless bombardment of sex-jibed misogyny, it's no wonder you have teens coaching pre-pubescent girls in the art of the gangbang.

^ Sorry about the long-windedness.  I get off on a tear sometimes.  I'll probably catch hell from both sides.  What can I say?  I call 'em like I see 'em!  It sounds conservative, but it isn't.  It's just my opinion and I'm interested in arguments to the contrary.  I'm not saying, "The Bible says it's wrong, so it's wrong!  And that settles it!"  That would be conservative!
::)

I think if girls want empowerment while taking their clothes off, they should become art models. See, being a Leda in a Renaissance painting or a late 19th century bathing beauty was empowering and spoke volumes about female beauty and sexuality on a higher level.

I agree, thoroughly depraved and I hope that those "men" get the book thrown at them.

The point of my posting is I do not see this as an "assault", however depraved.  Assault implies violence done by one on another, or the THREAT of violence.  From what I have read so far in the papers, there was no element of violence or threat of violence here.

I see this as statutory rape and NOT assault.  Don't know why I have a bee in my grammatical bonnet on this one.




  I think I know why that bees in your bonnet...

  Prosecuting this as an assault, and not a statutory rape, would seem to diminish the severity of the penalties upon conviction...

  Upon looking this story up (is this in Milwaukee, LyricBoy..?) seems the 16 year-old girl and 15 year-old boy will be charged with being party to sexual assault  and, in a new twist, the 40 year-old uncle of the 16 year-old (apparently he also had sex with the 11 year-old..) will be charged with sexual assault...

  The DA plans to have the 15 year-old and the 16 year-old tried as adults groove ;) on...

Remeber, in the London streets of Victorian Britain, fifteen-year-old girls sold their bodies for a loaf of bread.  I think this is a symptom of laissez-faire capitalism and imperialism.  It's the deterioration of social mobility, social values, and economic opportunity all acting in accordance.

Going completely off subject for a moment the above quote has brought this to mind. Someone at work this week ordered a book about the introduction of the corset in Victorian times and how it was used to 'keep women in their place'. The front cover had a picture of a young girl in a corset which at first glance you would think was an extremely erotic picture.Posed leaning on a fire place, breasts spilling out the top of a tight corset, one hand holding her petticoat up almost to her crotch showing off thighs and stockings.Until you looked closely at the face, and saw firstly how very young she was, and secondly the dead look of utter resignation on her face and the haunting sadness in her eyes.So yes the abuse of young girls in this way has always and sadly probably will always go on.

Back on subject I agreewith Lyricboy and Davester. This is not assault, which as you say would suggest violence it is sexual assault and abuse and should have a more severe sentance.

   I think I know why that bees in your bonnet...

   Prosecuting this as an assault, and not a statutory rape, would seem to diminish the severity of the penalties upon conviction...

   Upon looking this story up (is this in Milwaukee, LyricBoy..?) seems the 16 year-old girl and 15 year-old boy will be charged with being party to sexual assault  and, in a new twist, the 40 year-old uncle of the 16 year-old (apparently he also had sex with the 11 year-old..) will be charged with sexual assault...

   The DA plans to have the 15 year-old and the 16 year-old tried as adults groove ;) on...



Just as I suspected.  Say uncle!
:P


Going completely off subject for a moment the above quote has brought this to mind. Someone at work this week ordered a book about the introduction of the corset in Victorian times and how it was used to 'keep women in their place'. The front cover had a picture of a young girl in a corset which at first glance you would think was an extremely erotic picture.Posed leaning on a fire place, breasts spilling out the top of a tight corset, one hand holding her petticoat up almost to her crotch showing off thighs and stockings.Until you looked closely at the face, and saw firstly how very young she was, and secondly the dead look of utter resignation on her face and the haunting sadness in her eyes.So yes the abuse of young girls in this way has always and sadly probably will always go on.

Back on subject I agreewith Lyricboy and Davester. This is not assault, which as you say would suggest violence it is sexual assault and abuse and should have a more severe sentance.

The same principle is still at work.  All fashions are designed for scrawny women.  If you don't have just the right body type, you are socially punished and shamed. Young women of normal proportions still try to stuff their bodies into outfits three sizes too small.  We don't have footbinding, like the Chinese use to, but we've got pumps, those wonderful high-heels.  Guys catch hell too, trust me, if you're short, you might as well have plague, but it's still not as nasty as what women go through.  How many Joe College types have I seen ridicule "fat chicks" when they're beer guts hang over their belts!
::)

What happened to that pre-teen was quite violent indeed. 

What's the big deal with high heels?  I wear them because they make my legs look good and because they give me an extra couple inches of height.  How is that an example of women being "socially punished and shamed"?  Where are you coming up with this stuff?  I see women of all heights and figures wearing high heels.  It is not just for shorter women who wish they were taller. 

What's the big deal with high heels?  I wear them because they make my legs look good and because they give me an extra couple inches of height.  How is that an example of women being "socially punished and shamed"?  Where are you coming up with this stuff?  I see women of all heights and figures wearing high heels.  It is not just for shorter women who wish they were taller. 


Rants against high heels?  Geez.  What's next?  A diatribe against torpedo bras and hot pants?  :D

I'm confused.....what does an 11 year old sucking men off at the behest of her 16 year old cousin have to do with capitalism? 



Aren't you reading a TAD too much into this? 
Don't you know?  EVERYTHING is caused by capitalism.  Nevermind that this exact same thing is happening in "middle America" and kids as young as 13 have been caught doing this exact same thing on the buses in my sons' district (and these are middle to upper-middle class kids).  A neighbor of mine saw a video her son took on his cell phone of 1 girl "servicing" 3 different boys (word of advice:  if you're going to record stuff like this, make sure you don't do anything to get your cell phone taken away) within a matter of 30 minutes on the bus :o

Don't you know?  EVERYTHING is caused by capitalism.  Nevermind that this exact same thing is happening in "middle America" and kids as young as 13 have been caught doing this exact same thing on the buses in my sons' district (and these are middle to upper-middle class kids).  A neighbor of mine saw a video her son took on his cell phone of 1 girl "servicing" 3 different boys (word of advice:  if you're going to record stuff like this, make sure you don't do anything to get your cell phone taken away) within a matter of 30 minutes on the bus :o


Yeah we had the same thing here in outer Suburbua.  A 13-year-old girl *ahem* serviced a school chum on the bus.  Both were expelled from the school.  Problem with all the hubbub raised is that the girl is now likely seen as a 'ho while the boy was somewhat of a hero to his buddies.

Schoolyard oral incidents know no race, creed, or caste.

I think if girls want empowerment while taking their clothes off, they should become art models. See, being a Leda in a Renaissance painting or a late 19th century bathing beauty was empowering and spoke volumes about female beauty and sexuality on a higher level.


Dude.  That Leda chick?  You really don't wanna know what she ended up doing with that swan. 

Or maybe you do.  Which is cool, but keep your fowl perversions to yourself.  The AFLAC duck is sitting here, and he's lookin' real nervous right about now. 

/cranks up the Sousa

Be kind to your web-footed friends!.
For a duck may be somebody's mother.
They live all alone in the swamp,
Where the weather is cold and damp.
Well, you may think that this is the end.
Yes, it is, but to prove that you are wrong,
We're going to sing it once again,
Oh, yes we will, but it will be just a bit louder!

Be kind to your web-footed friends.
For a duck may be somebody's mother.
They live at the bottom of the swamp,
Where the weather is cold and damp.
You may think that this is the end.
Well, it is -- you are right!
So, just remember:
Be kind to your web-footed friends!
Be ever kind, yes, oh, so kind to all the duckies!

(SOMEBODY GET THIS FREAKIN' DUCK AWAY FROM ME!)

What's the big deal with high heels?  I wear them because they make my legs look good and because they give me an extra couple inches of height.  How is that an example of women being "socially punished and shamed"?  Where are you coming up with this stuff?  I see women of all heights and figures wearing high heels.  It is not just for shorter women who wish they were taller. 


What do you need with a couple of inches of height and wtf is wrong with your legs as is?  Got a problem with your height?  Got a problem with short people?
???

High heels are bad for your posture, your skeletal alignment, your plantar flexion, your lower extremity muscular activity, and make you far more prone to injury due to imbalance.  I'm no health nut, mind you, I just don't see a corollary to pumps in male attire.  Oh, and if some creep drops in behind you on your way home at night, and he's got bad intentions, good luck outrunning him in those goofy shoes!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/couto.gif


Don't you know?  EVERYTHING is caused by capitalism.
Oh come on now...


Rants against high heels?  Geez.  What's next?  A diatribe against torpedo bras and hot pants?  :D

;D ;D ;D
I love your phraseology here!  "Torpedo bras and hot pants!"

Yeah we had the same thing here in outer Suburbua.  A 13-year-old girl *ahem* serviced a school chum on the bus.  Both were expelled from the school.  Problem with all the hubbub raised is that the girl is now likely seen as a 'ho while the boy was somewhat of a hero to his buddies.

Schoolyard oral incidents know no race, creed, or caste.


The mama pajama rolled out of bed, and she ran to the police station
When the papa found out, he began to shout, and he started the investigation
It's against the law, it was against the law
What the mama saw, it was against the law.
The mama looked down and spit on the ground ev'ry time my name gets mentioned
The papa say "Oy, if I get that boy
I'm gonna stick him in the house of detention.....

......See you, me and Julio down by the schoolyard
See you, me and Julio down by the schoolyard

I thought that song had some reference to the civil rights movement....
others thought it was about....you know.

Paul Simon shrugged, and said he didn't really know what it was about himself!
;D

What do you need with a couple of inches of height and wtf is wrong with your legs as is?  Got a problem with your height?  Got a problem with short people?
???

High heels are bad for your posture, your skeletal alignment, your plantar flexion, your lower extremity muscular activity, and make you far more prone to injury due to imbalance.  I'm no health nut, mind you, I just don't see a corollary to pumps in male attire.  Oh, and if some creep drops in behind you on your way home at night, and he's got bad intentions, good luck outrunning him in those goofy shoes!


Excuse you, but you know jack sh*t about why women choose to wear high heels.  There is nothing wrong with my legs and nothing wrong with my height.  But when I put on a pair of heels, I like the way I look in my clothes.  I would not look the same in a pair of flats.  It gives me a boost of self-confidence.  It's fun and I like the way I look.  I have no problem with shorter people either, considering I'm 5'3 myself. 

There is nothing wrong with my posture, my spine or my feet.  I take care of my legs and feet, so I don't have physical problems with them.  I don't wear them all the time anyway, only when I have to dress up for interviews or when I'm going to to a party/dinner.  Other times, I'm in flip-flops or my Nikes.  And I can walk just fine in them too. 

And I can run real well in heels.  I've had to do it to catch trains, busses and elevators.  So don't start with that sh*t. 

Like I said, you don't know what you're talking about.  Seriously.  Some women may have problems wearing heels, but that's because they don't take care of their feet or they wear shoes that don't fit.  If you do those two things, you can feel as comfortable in them as you would in your own bare feet. 

Anything remotely sexual performed on a child is assault. I really can't believe you are asking this question.

I was going to say, uprises in said activities have occurred periodically through history due to rising poverty levels and deterioration of social mobility, as you mentioned. The economic decline of the nation's inner cities in the Johnson and Nixon eras led to the explosion of prostitution among young African-American women in the 1970s, for example. By the mid-1970s, Times Square and the vicinity was carpeted nightly by thousands of young black women in hideous costumes selling their bodies.


I leave and come back read things like this. My gawd!

Where are you getting your info for such generalizations? Sorry, the Internet doesn't count. The Times Square I, as well as others, knew had a diverse prostitute population.

Excuse you, but you know jack sh*t about why women choose to wear high heels.  There is nothing wrong with my legs and nothing wrong with my height.  But when I put on a pair of heels, I like the way I look in my clothes.  I would not look the same in a pair of flats.  It gives me a boost of self-confidence.  It's fun and I like the way I look.  I have no problem with shorter people either, considering I'm 5'3 myself. 

There is nothing wrong with my posture, my spine or my feet.  I take care of my legs and feet, so I don't have physical problems with them.  I don't wear them all the time anyway, only when I have to dress up for interviews or when I'm going to to a party/dinner.  Other times, I'm in flip-flops or my Nikes.  And I can walk just fine in them too. 

And I can run real well in heels.  I've had to do it to catch trains, busses and elevators.  So don't start with that sh*t. 

Like I said, you don't know what you're talking about.  Seriously.  Some women may have problems wearing heels, but that's because they don't take care of their feet or they wear shoes that don't fit.  If you do those two things, you can feel as comfortable in them as you would in your own bare feet. 

Hoooo-weee!  I got told!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/help.gif

Hoooo-weee!  I got told!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/help.gif


Yes, Max, I would say you were. I, too, can run like a mad chick in heels and I love my short frame.

Hoooo-weee!  I got told!


What do you expect when you say something ridiculous like high heels "socially punish and shame" women?  You know nothing about high heels, why women wear them and what women do to make sure they can wear them painlessly and walk in them flawlessly. 

I'm not trying to be the Grinch who stole sex appeal, but that is what high heels are all about.  You're in a vituperative frame of mind, so you'll keep up with the gainsaying, but in the end, you'll come to understand that high heels are all about your service to men.  It is not the conscious thought you have when you strap the on, but "catch a man" is  the cultural purpose of those shoes, like so many of fashions for women.  Compete with the other women to catch the best man you can.  This is not a process of deliberate thought in the cerebral cortex, so much as instinctual reaction to the pulses in your primitive brainstem.

It is a bit presumptuous to say I "know nothing" about why women wear high heels.  I may know things you haven't thought about or disagree with.

http://health.msn.com/general/ArticlePage.aspx?cp-documentid=100136635&wa=wsignin1.0

http://theeyeopener.cfhosting.ca/storydetail.cfm?storyid=104

I'm not trying to be the Grinch who stole sex appeal, but that is what high heels are all about.  You're in a vituperative frame of mind, so you'll keep up with the gainsaying, but in the end, you'll come to understand that high heels are all about your service to men.  It is not the conscious thought you have when you strap the on, but "catch a man" is  the cultural purpose of those shoes, like so many of fashions for women.  Compete with the other women to catch the best man you can.  This is not a process of deliberate thought in the cerebral cortex, so much as instinctual reaction to the pulses in your primitive brainstem.


You know what, speak an English that everyone here can understand.  I'm tired of all your posts being laced with $12 words in an attempt to belittle other people.  I have a college degree too, but I don't feel the need to smack people over the head with it by pulling out words like "vituperative" and "gainsaying".  I don't even know what the hell those words mean. 


I do not wear high heels to catch the best man I can.  I have never worn them for that reason.  That is absurd.  I wear high heels because I like the way I look when I where them.  I wear them because they look good with my clothes.  I wear them because I like the way I feel when I wear them.  I do not wear them because I am "in service to a man".  What a load of horsesh*t.

You know what, speak an English that everyone here can understand.  I'm tired of all your posts being laced with $12 words in an attempt to belittle other people.  I have a college degree too, but I don't feel the need to smack people over the head with it by pulling out words like "vituperative" and "gainsaying".  I don't even know what the hell those words mean. 


I do not wear high heels to catch the best man I can.  I have never worn them for that reason.  That is absurd.  I wear high heels because I like the way I look when I where them.  I wear them because they look good with my clothes.  I wear them because I like the way I feel when I wear them.  I do not wear them because I am "in service to a man".  What a load of horsesh*t.
Historically Maxwell is 100% right about high heels though, same with the corset and the foot binding he mentions. They were designed by men to keep the 'little woman' in her place. However as history proves women rose up and refused to be subjugated so it all backfired on them!.Now we wear heels and corsets for exactly the reason you give, because we want to and because we feel good in them.I love wearing corsets, I don't do it to attract men I've got one of those already, but because I feel good in them. I can't wear high heels to save my life because I can't walk in them but I do wear platform shoes.At 5 ft 11' tall it's not to add to my height either it's because I like them. Maybe some women do still wear high heels to catch a man but clever them!   

Historically Maxwell is 100% right about high heels though, same with the corset and the foot binding he mentions. They were designed by men to keep the 'little woman' in her place. However as history proves women rose up and refused to be subjugated so it all backfired on them!.Now we wear heels and corsets for exactly the reason you give, because we want to and because we feel good in them.I love wearing corsets, I don't do it to attract men I've got one of those already, but because I feel good in them. I can't wear high heels to save my life because I can't walk in them but I do wear platform shoes.At 5 ft 11' tall it's not to add to my height either it's because I like them. Maybe some women do still wear high heels to catch a man but clever them!   



I'm not doubting the historical validity of what he said.  I'm doubting him saying that it's still like that to this day.  THAT'S what I think is a pile of horse-hockey. 


And I love wearing corsets too.  I have this cute midnight blue satin one I wear with a black cami underneath, a pair of cute jeans and my strappy heels. 

I'm not doubting the historical validity of what he said.  I'm doubting him saying that it's still like that to this day.  THAT'S what I think is a pile of horse-hockey. 


And I love wearing corsets too.  I have this cute midnight blue satin one I wear with a black cami underneath, a pair of cute jeans and my strappy heels. 
I agree.That's men for you though, well some of them anyway. Why do you think it took us so long to get the vote!


Maybe he just likes the idea of those instinctual primate pulses............. ::)

You know what, speak an English that everyone here can understand.  I'm tired of all your posts being laced with $12 words in an attempt to belittle other people.  I have a college degree too, but I don't feel the need to smack people over the head with it by pulling out words like "vituperative" and "gainsaying".  I don't even know what the hell those words mean. 


I do not wear high heels to catch the best man I can.  I have never worn them for that reason.  That is absurd.  I wear high heels because I like the way I look when I where them.  I wear them because they look good with my clothes.  I wear them because I like the way I feel when I wear them.  I do not wear them because I am "in service to a man".  What a load of horsesh*t.


  Why so defensive..?  I've read self-censored expletives, but not much in the way of a constructive counter arguement to Max's position.  If you're opposed to his choice of diction that's not his problem, it's yours...

  Sorry, hand-waving and anecdotes have no place in debates and these conniption fits of yours are getting tiresome and annoying...

 

I can't decide if Max sounds like Archie Bunker with his chauvinistic overtones , or Tom Cruise with his psycobabble.

Who the heck is he to tell someone why they wear a certain article of clothing? What comes next, is he going to tell women that they shouldn't wear bras either? After all, bras aren't natural, women in Africa don't wear them. They shouldn't wear dresses either. And why do some of them let their hair grow long? I guess in Max's perfect world you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a man and a woman. Unless they were naked of course. Why do we wear clothes in the first place. I guess it's a haberdasher capitalist conspiracy. They control the government along with big oil making sure that nudity is illegal so we are forever forced to cover ourselves up.


Oh yeah. I do think it's assault. 

OK seems the majority of this room sees it as "assault" even though voluntary.  I ran the poll, and am prepared to recognize the majority opinion.

Now baad on the course of this thread, I also need to determine if I need to run a poll to determine if and of the below also constitute a male chauvanist assault on all that is womanhood:

-High heels
-Torpedo bras
-Corsets
-Hot Pants
-Chunky heels
-Flip flops

...and the age-old question... WHY DON'T MEN EVER WEAR HIGH HEELS?  ;D

^ I tried once for Halloween.  It really sucked.

What is a torpedo bra?  Sounds like something Austin Powers' fembots used...

^ I tried once for Halloween.  It really sucked.

What is a torpedo bra?  Sounds like something Austin Powers' fembots used...
think Madonna ;)

OK seems the majority of this room sees it as "assault" even though voluntary.  I ran the poll, and am prepared to recognize the majority opinion.

Now baad on the course of this thread, I also need to determine if I need to run a poll to determine if and of the below also constitute a male chauvanist assault on all that is womanhood:

-High heels
-Torpedo bras
-Corsets
-Hot Pants
-Chunky heels
-Flip flops

...and the age-old question... WHY DON'T MEN EVER WEAR HIGH HEELS?   ;D


Some do. But other men have a problem with them and assault them when they do.

^ I tried once for Halloween.  It really sucked.

What is a torpedo bra?  Sounds like something Austin Powers' fembots used...


They are pointy and sorta cone-shaped (thus sometimes referred to as "cone bras").  Sometimes they have tassels/twirlies attached to them too.  A real pro can wear a cone bra and make the tassles rotate in opposite directions (but I digress  :-[ )

As Mama_K said... think Madonna...

I'm not doubting the historical validity of what he said.  I'm doubting him saying that it's still like that to this day.  THAT'S what I think is a pile of horse-hockey. 


And I love wearing corsets too.  I have this cute midnight blue satin one I wear with a black cami underneath, a pair of cute jeans and my strappy heels. 


Plus, ya know... heels make your legs look better.

Plus, ya know... heels make your legs look better.



I know.  Hence why I love them.

I know.  Hence why I love them.


8)

I can't decide if Max sounds like Archie Bunker with his chauvinistic overtones , or Tom Cruise with his psycobabble.

Who the heck is he to tell someone why they wear a certain article of clothing? What comes next, is he going to tell women that they shouldn't wear bras either? After all, bras aren't natural, women in Africa don't wear them. They shouldn't wear dresses either. And why do some of them let their hair grow long? I guess in Max's perfect world you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a man and a woman. Unless they were naked of course. Why do we wear clothes in the first place. I guess it's a haberdasher capitalist conspiracy. They control the government along with big oil making sure that nudity is illegal so we are forever forced to cover ourselves up.


Oh yeah. I do think it's assault.   



There's an "h" in "psycho." 
I must protest.  I don't like to tell people what to wear.  I don't want people telling me what to wear.  High heels always seemed like a more benign cousin of Chinese-footbinding to me.  I had a girlfriend who was particularly fond of pumps.  I never brought that up.  She would have reacted much the same way as morfina  Why make that kind of trouble for myself?  Sofa city, sweetheart!

I don't like the fashion industry because it capitalizes on a person's insecurity and vanity.  If my girlfriend wants to read Cosmo, that's her hell and none of my own!  Just don't ask me to partake in "Are you and your boyfriend compatible" surveys, for chrissakes!
::)



You know what, speak an English that everyone here can understand.  I'm tired of all your posts being laced with $12 words in an attempt to belittle other people.  I have a college degree too, but I don't feel the need to smack people over the head with it by pulling out words like "vituperative" and "gainsaying".  I don't even know what the hell those words mean. 
$12 words?  No way!  I buy 'em in bulk at Costco.  They're about a buck each! 
I'm sorry if you got the wrong impression about my vocabulary.  I never want to belittle people.  If you belittle people, they might come back with something to belittle you.  Not a good idea.  I like words.  I always have.  If you keep collecting words, you have so many that the word you use to express a thought might not be a word the other person knows.  If I see a word I don't know, I google it.  There are lots of online dictionaries.  Type the word "vituperative" and "dictionary" into google, and see what comes up. 
Numbers are different for me.  I'm terrible at math.  I don't like numbers.  There's too many of them!


I do not wear high heels to catch the best man I can.  I have never worn them for that reason.  That is absurd.  I wear high heels because I like the way I look when I where them.  I wear them because they look good with my clothes.  I wear them because I like the way I feel when I wear them.  I do not wear them because I am "in service to a man".  What a load of horsesh*t.

The origins of vanity is a philosophical discussion, I suppose.

You know what, speak an English that everyone here can understand.  I'm tired of all your posts being laced with $12 words in an attempt to belittle other people.  I have a college degree too, but I don't feel the need to smack people over the head with it by pulling out words like "vituperative" and "gainsaying".  I don't even know what the hell those words mean. 


I do not wear high heels to catch the best man I can.  I have never worn them for that reason.  That is absurd.  I wear high heels because I like the way I look when I where them.  I wear them because they look good with my clothes.  I wear them because I like the way I feel when I wear them.  I do not wear them because I am "in service to a man".  What a load of horsesh*t.


I'd like to say that Merriam-Webster.com is just a few keystrokes away. Instead of viewing anything that anybody else here has to say about various things that you hold near and dear, as a personal attack, just remember that you are not the nucleus of "Inthe00s". In other words, this website does not revolve solely around your opinions. That's the beauty of the internet. We are ALL allowed to state our opinions. If it happens to be something you don't agree with, there's no need to throw a hissy fit. I've been witness to a few of these episodes. If you like pumps or not, I don't think Max was saying it was wrong. I think he was simply stating a historical timeline of the gender biased roles, (i.e. The stay at home wife who scrubs the kitchen floor in high heels). The ploys that have brainwashed women into thinking they must groom in certain ways and dress in a particular fashion in order to be attractive to men, have been drilled into our heads for decades. Nowadays, women are free to wear what they want to wear. But it still is ever present in women's magazines, "dress this way to look 10lbs thinner.. " "How to get HIM to take a second look" ... "FDS for that just showered fresh feeling" .. "Do men prefer grooming down there??"  (Some of these are close to actual article titles/ads in any Glamour or Cosmo magazine.) Young women may dress more provocatively these days because that's the trend, but the trends maybe reflect those attention getting roles of the earlier cheesecake pinups rather than feminist "I love my body as is, and I don't need adornment to be attractive" attitudes that brought us to where we are today.  Ok, I've said my piece... Carry on. 

Oh and by the way, I believe an 11 yr old 'servicing' adult men is child rape, sexual assault, statutory rape, all in one. And the 16 yr old cousin should be held accountable also, and tried as an adult.  (Just to be back on topic )

I'd like to say that Merriam-Webster.com is just a few keystrokes away. Instead of viewing anything that anybody else here has to say about various things that you hold near and dear, as a personal attack, just remember that you are not the nucleus of "Inthe00s". In other words, this website does not revolve solely around your opinions. That's the beauty of the internet. We are ALL allowed to state our opinions. If it happens to be something you don't agree with, there's no need to throw a hissy fit. I've been witness to a few of these episodes. If you like pumps or not, I don't think Max was saying it was wrong. I think he was simply stating a historical timeline of the gender biased roles, (i.e. The stay at home wife who scrubs the kitchen floor in high heels). The ploys that have brainwashed women into thinking they must groom in certain ways and dress in a particular fashion in order to be attractive to men, have been drilled into our heads for decades. Nowadays, women are free to wear what they want to wear. But it still is ever present in women's magazines, "dress this way to look 10lbs thinner.. " "How to get HIM to take a second look" ... "FDS for that just showered fresh feeling" .. "Do men prefer grooming down there??"  (Some of these are close to actual article titles/ads in any Glamour or Cosmo magazine.) Young women may dress more provocatively these days because that's the trend, but the trends maybe reflect those attention getting roles of the earlier cheesecake pinups rather than feminist "I love my body as is, and I don't need adornment to be attractive" attitudes that brought us to where we are today.  Ok, I've said my piece... Carry on. 

Oh and by the way, I believe an 11 yr old 'servicing' adult men is child rape, sexual assault, statutory rape, all in one. And the 16 yr old cousin should be held accountable also, and tried as an adult.  (Just to be back on topic )

What Cosmo sells is shackles marketed as freedom.  I don't think it was a conspiracy, but the results make it appear so.  That's what I was saying about the "neo-feminist" types--from Camille Paglia to Annie Sprinkle. Reverse psychology to kill equality of the sexes.  Don't let men sell you as a sex object, you go out there and sell yourself to men as a sex object!
::)

What Cosmo sells is shackles marketed as freedom.  I don't think it was a conspiracy, but the results make it appear so.  That's what I was saying about the "neo-feminist" types--from Camille Paglia to Annie Sprinkle. Reverse psychology to kill equality of the sexes.  Don't let men sell you as a sex object, you go out there and sell yourself to men as a sex object!
::)


Are you saying grown women can't think for themself?

I'm sorry but I just don't understand this attitude that the feminist stance that this type of open sexuality is objectifying women should be followed by all women, and any women who disagree are somehow brainwashed. If I were a woman I'd find that kind of insulting.

Are you saying grown women can't think for themself?

I'm sorry but I just don't understand this attitude that the feminist stance that this type of open sexuality is objectifying women should be followed by all women, and any women who disagree are somehow brainwashed. If I were a woman I'd find that kind of insulting.

No. It's not all or nothing. 
Advertising, marketing, PR, infotainment, this stuff f**ks with all our heads.  It's not so simple  You can be adversely affected in some respects and self-determining in others.  Same goes for trash like Cosmo.  I've met lots of brainy women who are critical thinkers, and on the other hand they've got copies of Glamour and Cosmo hanging around. 
People used say I was being brainwashed when I used to listen to Limbaugh for laughs, but I did find his nasty propaganda seeping into some of my thought processes.  Same with FOX News.  That's the master stroke of well-crafted media.  Even if you hate it, you come back to it.  Thus, one must be vigilent against insidious messages entering the mind through subtle passageways. 
That would be the only "advice" I would give anybody who reads Cosmo or listens to Limbaugh.  You might read Cosmo and think it's a bunch of rubbish, then find yourself in the mirror saying, "I really ought to lose ten pounds."  You might listen to Limbaugh to laugh at what an a-hole he is, but find yourself hating Hillary all the more. 
Caution in media consumption.

What Cosmo sells is shackles marketed as freedom.  Don't let men sell you as a sex object, you go out there and sell yourself to men as a sex object!
::)
I guess it's escaped your attention that a majority of the women's magazines are run by........WOMEN!

Are you saying grown women can't think for themself?

I'm sorry but I just don't understand this attitude that the feminist stance that this type of open sexuality is objectifying women should be followed by all women, and any women who disagree are somehow brainwashed. If I were a woman I'd find that kind of insulting.

I actually have a subscription to Glamour. And I used to read Cosmo regularly also. And while they are advancing more toward Social Awareness than they used to, they still have those cheese filled articles that give women the idea that they have to look a certain way to be attractive. While they may tout the idea that all bodies are beautiful, and we should be accepting and think we are sexy as we are now, they have yet to put a 300 lb woman on their cover in an evening gown.  They will have one article stating "Love your curves, He Does!" and then yoiu turn the page and it's a 3 page fashion spread of some long, lean supermodel in hot pants and a bustier.  Women who are self confident in themselves can easily see past this and laugh at the irony. But those who are not as secure, will wish to look like that woman and will feel depressed because she doesn't.  Believe me, I've been on both sides of the coin.
I'm a 'plus sized' woman who wasn't always. I have seen how retail dictates that the fashionable clothes should only go to a size 14 at the highest. It wasn't until Corporate America realized that there are a whole lotta women out there that are size 14 and up,  that this trend changed. They didn't change it to make plus sized women feel more accepting of themselves, no.  They did it to make lots and lots of cash. And while I am thankful to Lane Bryant for doing so, because I truly don't feel like I should be banned to muumuus for the rest of my life, I also realize that someone of my size and stature won't necessarily be making the next Glamour cover.  (Queen Latifah did , but only after she had a breast reduction and lost about 30 lbs. And she's tall. ) And the fact that fashion dictates that skin is in, well those super-low riders aren't exactly made for someone who's got a gut covered with stretch marks from bearing children or from gaining weight. They are strictly targeting the young, impressionable, and dare I say , superficial young women who believe that if their tan isn't perfect, their lives are over.  
So in summary, I would say that people in general are influenced by acceptance. Most folks want to be accepted, and there are corporate subliminalizatons out there that are whispering by way of media and retail that this is how you are accepted.  It's so subtle that we don't even realize it.

I guess it's escaped your attention that a majority of the women's magazines are run by........WOMEN!

I have my Glamour magazine right here, and the Editor-in-Chief is a woman , Cynthia  Leive.  BUT the VP/Publisher is a man, As well as the President and CEO, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Marketing Officer, Group Presidents, and Publishing Directors.

We sure went off on a tangent here!

But it still is ever present in women's magazines, "dress this way to look 10lbs thinner.. " "How to get HIM to take a second look" ... "FDS for that just showered fresh feeling" .. "Do men prefer grooming down there??"  (Some of these are close to actual article titles/ads in any Glamour or Cosmo magazine.)

But they have men starring in those "ultra weight loss" ads too, and plenty of men's magazines have probed whether or not men should shave their backs to look better at the beach.  And my guess is that for their own resons women don't want to be "unfresh" (stinky).  Then there is "Bob", the guy who sells the miracle "Male enhancement" elixir.

Each gender has its cross to bear...

But they have men starring in those "ultra weight loss" ads too, and plenty of men's magazines have probed whether or not men should shave their backs to look better at the beach.  And my guess is that for their own resons women don't want to be "unfresh" (stinky).  Then there is "Bob", the guy who sells the miracle "Male enhancement" elixir.

Each gender has its cross to bear...

exactly. When I mentioned the Media whispering (ahem... BASHING US IN THE HEAD) with their subliminal messages, Men feel that they have to be a certain way to get that hot barbie doll , and women feel like they need to smell like artificial garden flowers to attract them.  For the record, Soap and water works just fine. No need for some chemical spray. As for "Bob" well that is just playing on men's insecurity that the almighty penis has to be like a horse to please someone.

I have my Glamour magazine right here, and the Editor-in-Chief is a woman , Cynthia  Leive.  BUT the VP/Publisher is a man, As well as the President and CEO, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Marketing Officer, Group Presidents, and Publishing Directors.
I was looking at my "Fitness" magazine, for which a majority of the "higher ups" are women......Cosmo's the same....although Cosmo's owned by Hearst Magazines, which is about 1/2-1/2 ;)

as the blue eyed bimbo said in her Dateline interview with Matt Lauer, "Sex Sells" . It's not strictly males running the world, or females running the world, it's MONEY running the world. Whether it's FHM, GQ, Glamour, Fitness, Self, Cosmopolitan or Maxxim, they all are run by big Corporate holders. They target us poor slobs out in the world, to give up that 4.50 to buy their magazine , for whatever reason it may be that hooked us in the first place. (Some just look at the pretty pictures ! :P )  It makes me want to cancel my subscriptions right now!! :P  Yet I can't, as I haven't done that last quiz.. "How do you know if he is turned on by you"  ::)

For the record, Soap and water works just fine. No need for some chemical spray.


Sshhhhhhhh...

If people find this out you'll bring down an entire industry that churns out these sprays, powders, cremes, bags, gels, nozzles, wings, propellers, and so on.

;D ;D

I have my Glamour magazine right here, and the Editor-in-Chief is a woman , Cynthia  Leive.  BUT the VP/Publisher is a man, As well as the President and CEO, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Marketing Officer, Group Presidents, and Publishing Directors.

Isn't Hugh Hefner's daughter the editor-in-chief of Playboy?

The only guys I've known who read Maxim or GQ are guys I can most charitably describe as "male bimbos."
::)

I leave and come back read things like this. My gawd!

Where are you getting your info for such generalizations? Sorry, the Internet doesn't count. The Times Square I, as well as others, knew had a diverse prostitute population.


Hmm...my father. It was diverse, but at least in the late '70s, it had many, many African-Americans.

Hmm...my father. It was diverse, but at least in the late '70s, it had many, many African-Americans.


was he buying?  ;)  ;D (j/k - you walked right into that one)

was he buying?  ;)  ;D (j/k - you walked right into that one)

In the '70s, I was a little kid living on a farm in NH.  Not much of a chance I'd be perusing the ladies of night on 8th Avenue!  By the time I had the age and opportunity, the few that were left could give you a deadly disease, and they only looked like ladies in the shadows!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/evil6.gif

In the '70s, I was a little kid living on a farm in NH.  Not much of a chance I'd be perusing the ladies of night on 8th Avenue! 


Don't wanna know.  Not gonna go there.

(Sorry, Max, you left yourself wide open to this after the first two sentences. :)

Don't wanna know.  Not gonna go there.

(Sorry, Max, you left yourself wide open to this after the first two sentences. :)

Look, are you insinuating something?  Out with it, lad!