1
   

I'm no prude, but......

 
 
Chai
 
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 11:16 am
I've hesitated starting this thread, as I like to think I'm open minded and all that other good stuff......but somewhere there's got to be a line.

What is it with these low riding pants girls are wearing?
I know, I know, at one time exposing your ankles was considered risque (and obviously still is in some parts of the world)

I know I can't stop it, and this style will eventually go away. I remember wearing halters and hot pants (boy I'm dating myself) but these items of clothing did not come to within literally a 1/4 inch of exposing my genitals.

I've heard people joke about seeing a girls butt crack, but that's missing the point.
Turn the woman around and you can help but notice you are seeing the top of her vulva.
Why has it become acceptable to expose very sexual areas of skin to the general public?
Now that I have come across as a crusty old curmudgeon - I'd seriously like to know - What are your thoughts on this?

Especially from parents - If you are a parent that is okay with having your daughter wearing such sexually explicit clothes in the street, why?
Again, this isn't a mini skirt we're talking about
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,339 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 11:19 am
Don't have a clue of to what you refer . . .


However, if you could tell me where to find such young ladies, i'd be happy to make a purely sub . . . er, objective study . . .
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 11:19 am
something to do with the stock market I assume.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 11:25 am
I'm a parent of a teen girl. She doesn't wear low riders.

However, I have a horrible time buying her clothes now that regular or even hip hugger jeans aren't popular.

You say we aren't talking mini skirt... A walk into the school to pick up my daughter for an appointment and I'm blasted with cootchie! The skirts are now so short they can't stand, let alone sit, without showing undies.

Funny thing. The other day she was laughing about one of her male friends that actually asked if the pants he was wearing made him look fat. He's not gay and he's not fat. The BOYS are now wearing the girls low riders as part of the emo fashion scene. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 11:27 am
A DJ in Chicago got fired in the 60's for saying:

If the skirts get any shorter, the ladies will have two more cheeks to powder, and more hair to comb.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 11:43 am
The thing that bugs me is that most girls have marginal bodies for these kind of clothes, and some should not even think about it. Nothing grosser than a young girl with a roll just draping over the hip huggers. I gained about 25 pounds over the last couple years and went out and went for "fat" clothes, new suits and lotsa sweaters and vests. I tell people that Im comfortable with my image and if they keep it up, they will be in the ER. Girls should do the same. They should, if theyre fat, try to lose, if they cant , get used to a wardrobe that is becoming to their body style.
Why the hell did painter pants go out of style? all these girls are trying to jam that additional avoirdupois into revealing clothes. Hell with the modesty, I say if pull it off you can, you must , if not you can, then do not, there is no try.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 12:06 pm
squinney wrote:
The skirts are now so short they can't stand, let alone sit, without showing undies.


...and you don't have to stand in front of a class and lecture to them.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 12:15 pm
I can imagine, Acquiunk! I recently had an interpreter with a short skirt and NO sense -- she sat there without bothering to cross her legs or at least keep them pressed shut. I couldn't figure out what to say to her, it seemed way too obvious for her not to figure out that the whole audience knew her panties were blue.

At least she had panties, I guess.

<shudder>
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 12:17 pm
Advertising "fashionable" garments results in conspicuous eyestores....but I've been told that advertising violence doesn't influence teens at all.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 12:20 pm
Oh and on the parental angle, my kid's only 4 but I've ranted before at the total hoochie mama styles available -- not just available, prevalent -- for that size. YUCK.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 12:30 pm
Noddy24 wrote:
Advertising "fashionable" garments results in conspicuous eyestores....but I've been told that advertising violence doesn't influence teens at all.


good one noddy
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 01:03 pm
I'm happy that my daughter's school requires uniforms,
and I think we'll keep that all the way through high school.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 01:18 pm
CalamityJane wrote:
I'm happy that my daughter's school requires uniforms,
and I think we'll keep that all the way through high school.


When you say your daughter, is that CJ we're talking about?

Is she still at school?....blimey, I thought she was about twenty one!

Where is she by the way....are you looking after her dominion while she is on holiday?
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 01:31 pm
No Spanky, when I say my daughter, than I'm talking about my 9 year old one, and if you're referring to my avatar -
that's how I look in the morning Laughing
0 Replies
 
dragon49
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 01:51 pm
i once saw two girls wearing low cut jeans with halter tops. they both had nice rolls hanging right over the jeans and what was worse was that they both had these huge jeweled belt buckles that drew attention right to their rolls. I am talking huge, maybe 2 inches tall and 10 inches wide that spelled out bosley (i guess from charlie's angels) and the other one-hot mama. not kidding, i was disgusted.
0 Replies
 
mac11
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 02:00 pm
Not that I wore them Rolling Eyes but there were extreme low riders in the early 70s too. We called them 1-snap jeans. A miniscule zipper and one snap is all that held them up.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 02:05 pm
So far we've heard from some Moms who do not (or will not in the future) allow their daughters to dress in this fashion.

Let's hear a word from those Moms & Dads who do allow this.

Truly, I'm very intersted in why and how you came to this decision
I'm not going to parent bash.

OH HEY! How about adding this!

The adult women of A2K who dress like this......
Why?
What message do you feel or hope you are sending?
Do you feel that some day you will look back and regret how you portrayed yourself?
Or - do you feel you are dressed perfectly correctly, for any situation you might run into during the day?
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 02:13 pm
mac11

The hip huggers I do remember from the 70's,
however, girls wore shirts tucked INTO the pants, you didn't see any pubic hair stubble.

(god, those last 7 words even gross ME out)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 02:27 pm
I recently noticed that some XXXL-size in "young fashion" could easily be sold as XS for adults ...
0 Replies
 
CodeBorg
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 02:29 pm
People want to be wanted.

What would it take ... instead of this?
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » I'm no prude, but......
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/15/2024 at 01:25:29