Indecent Exposure: Do today’s fashions promote the naked truth?


NAKEDTRUTH


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.

Make Earth Day 2004 count


EARTHDAY



EARTHDAY


While some people may plant trees or pick up litter to honour Earth Day, Yahoo (by way of Debra Galant) points the way to how you might go about Saving the World in a Day.
As we read every day, and as we are aware, environmental crises abound as our own actions and those of industry pollute and degrade the fragile environment we all need to survive. What can we do? Well, certainly this provides some insight as answer to that question.
First launched as an environmental awareness event in the United States in 1970, Earth Day (April 22nd) is celebrated as the birth of the environmental movement. Spearheaded by Wisconsin Governor Gaylord Nelson and Harvard University student Denis Hayes, Earth Day has become a powerful catalyst for change, involving some 20 million participants each April 22nd, in teach-ins that address decades of environmental pollution.
In Canada in 1990, two million Canadians joined 200 million people in 141 nations across the globe in celebrating the first International Earth Day. Earth Day serves to put needed pressure on heads of nation states to address issues such as climate change and the world wide loss of species.
In many places, including Canada, Earth Day has grown into Earth Week and even Earth Month, when thousands of events take place, ranging from waterway clean-ups to engaging in a variety of other pollution solutions. This is Earth Day. Organize, volunteer, and learn what you can do to help make this a better world for all of us.

Tangled Up In Boobs
Not Across My Daughter’s Big Brass Bed You Don’t, Bob

“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.”


BOBDYLAN


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 …”

The Depressive and the Psychopath
At last we know why the Columbine killers did it

columbine-pic.jpg

Slate magazine publishes author Dave Cullen’s fascinating portrait of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who murdered 12 classmates and a teacher before committing suicide at Columbine High School, five years ago today. “At last,” writes Cullen, “we know why the Columbine killers did it.”

Harris and Klebold would have been dismayed that Columbine was dubbed the “worst school shooting in American history.” They set their sights on eclipsing the world’s greatest mass murderers, but the media never saw past the choice of venue. The school setting drove analysis in the wrong direction.

Employing the work of University of British Columbia psychology professor Robert Hare — who was consulted by the FBI about Columbine, as well as by Cullen for his Slate story — Harris was deemed to be a psychopath. “Unlike psychotic individuals, psychopaths are rational and aware of what they are doing and why,” writes Hare. Diagnosing Harris as a psychopath was not a simple matter. But once the diagnosis was made, new light was shed on the thought process that drove him to mass murder.
You can read more over at Cullen’s blog, Conclusive Evidence.