Abercrombie & Fitch catalog photo marketed to 10 – 13 year olds

Throughout history, people have thrown up their hands at cultural change and declared the world was going to hell in a handbasket. Well, to many it looks as if it’s headed there again — faster than ever — as bare skin is spotted just about everywhere you look, particularly among young people.
What was once relegated to adult videos, strip clubs and Playboy magazine now shows up regularly on network sitcoms, reality shows, music videos and advertisements. Much to the alarm of many parents and child advocates, fashion merchants are marketing the provocative styles of pop-music princesses to teens and prepubescent girls who yearn to look “hot”.
Bucking the bare skin trend, though, is like trying to stop a freight train.
So where does the healthy expression of sexuality and a mature attitude about the human body end and plain old-fashioned smut begin? Young people in every generation have expressed themselves in ways that challenged authority and the rules of the game, from “Elvis the Pelvis” in the ’50s, to long hair, the ‘braless look’ and miniskirts in the ’60s; from the sexual revolution and punk rock in the ’70s through to the low-rise, hip-hugging jeans and exposed flesh of today.
Meanwhile, the controversies continue.
Late last year clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch pulled its controversial in-store catalogues after outraged parents threatened a boycott over material they said was pornographic, according to Slate magazine. The “Christmas Field Guide” featured naked or nearly naked young models in outdoor settings, and offered advice on sex. Even earlier, in 1995 and 1999, advertising campaigns for Calvin Klein Jeans employed images of pubescent models in provocative poses, causing major controversy and debate when they crossed the line between fashion and pornography.
Well, the answer to the decay of Western society seems to be at hand.

People who wear low-slung pants that expose skin or “intimate clothing” would face a fine of up to $500 and possible jail time under a bill filed by a Louisiana lawmaker.

According to a Times-Picayune article reporting on State Representative Derrick Shepherd’s concerns (“I’m sick of catching glimpses of boxer shorts and G-strings over the lowered belt lines of young adults”), the proposed legislation would be appended to the state’s obscenity law, which restricts sexual activity in public places and the sale of sexually explicit items. Joe Cook, head of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Louisiana chapter, said the bill probably does not meet the U.S. Supreme Court’s standard for the prohibition of obscene behavior under the First Amendment.

“When the man who wrote ‘Forever Young’ starts leering at jailbait during prime time, the result looks like a recruiting tool for a pedophilia advocacy group.”

Bob Dylan, as seen in the Victoria’s Secret campaign.

From the first moment VanRamblings saw Bob Dylan shilling women’s undergarments in a Victoria’s Secret ad, we felt a sense of dis-ease, as if we were watching something unsavoury, and corrupt.
Writing as a 53-year-old male who, in the past, has been very much attracted to younger women, in recent years I have changed the nature of my mindset around my relations with comely young women. No more are they objects of my sexual affection; rather, my feelings toward young women have become distinctly paternal and caring. I cannot help but see young women as an extension of family, as someone’s daughter. The nature of my relations with young women, then, has come to be governed by “the golden rule”: treat young women as you would wish older men to treat your daughter were she to find herself in a similar circumstance. To wit: caring, appreciative of their humanity and intelligence, and loving, in the most generous and non-sexual sense of the word.
What the hell, then, is Bob Dylan doing, carrying on in a lascivious manner with a barely clothed woman, young enough to be his granddaughter?
As a follow-up to VanRamblings’ earlier story on Dylan’s appearance in a Victoria’s Secret ad, Leslie Bennetts — who is quoted above — offers her thoughts on what she felt the first time she watched him play a song called ‘Love Sick’ while “a nubile young model writhed around in her underwear …”

Bob Dylan has gone from Tangled Up In Blue to tangled up in women’s lingerie. As part of a move to bring Dylan’s music to new audiences, the enigmatic singer-songwriter, one of the last cultural figures from the 1960s to continue to live outside the boundaries of mainstream pop culture, has made his first appearance as a celebrity pitchman — for Victoria’s Secret (Bobby, say it ain’t so). And, yes, the world is in a state of collapse.
In a Wall Street Journal story, writer Brian Steinberg details how the mustachioed, 62-year-old Dylan filmed a TV ad for the lingerie chain’s “Angels” line, while models cavort to a remixed version of his 1997 song Love Sick (and, really, don’t we all feel a little bit sick about this?).
Fans are, as you might well imagine, heartsick at the latest developments in Dylan’s career, expressing everything from dismay to incredulity, to outright and near apoplectic anger.
Update: Well, at least Dylan is consistent. VanRamblings offers this video in support of its contention that Dylan has sold out. The first part of the video is from a December 5, 1965 interview session with reporters, and the second portion of the video offers a clip from the Victoria’s Secret ad.
Meanwhile, The Los Angeles Times begins a weekly series of articles about songwriters. This week they profile Mr. Sell-Out, er, I mean, Mr. Dylan.