Lieve wrote:
> do kids perceive as "normal" when they're fed this stuff all day? Of course there is that question again. Just what is "normal" and who is defining it? Would suppose that most folks here think they are normal (according to the standard definition) but in the general populace I doubt they would be found as such. A hundred years ago many of us would have been killed for what we consider normal, for us. Have pondered over Erica's comments and find them with much validity as I, too, have struggled with what I find acceptable or objectionable, in regards to my neices and nephews. My nephew came home from school one day, while living for a time with me, and announced "my friends think you are too strict." I was put aback by that comment and realized that, though liberal in some areas, I was extremely rigid in others (the children I deemed proper for him to play with, what movies I would let him view, etc.). I, too, have been shocked and disgusted by the crotch grabbing entertainers but worry that if we, as a society, start putting parameters and controls over what others may say and do then we are just as guilty as the Puritans of stifling freedom. Just what is our ultimate goal? Maybe it is just me, sensitive to those issues, since not so very long ago, and perhaps again in the future, homosexuals were not allowed out of their cages without special circumstance. But who draws the lines, who makes the rules? And where do they stop? Do they stop? Yes, in the sixties a singer with a cute > face may have sold more than someone less attractive and that was exploited > too, and from there on we had more and more suggestive moves and pouting > lips and the works, Didn't our parents say much the same things that are being said today, about the music and societal changes of the 60's? Maybe we all should just take it all off and take away some of the excitement and the intrigue. my own desire to live and let live and be tolerant, I see it as > my duty to react against this cheap slutty trend. I don't see the trend. Dancehall girls way back when. Marilyn in the 50's. Janis in the 60's. Maybe when forced to look at things differently, when it involves our own young and our own motives, we are not quite as evolved or as free as we once ascribed to be. the only "correct" love relationship is one on one. If someone feels (or > expresses) love for more than one person, and it is considered more than > friendship (which I think is an artificial distinction anyway) then they are > judged as having "cheated" and the other party is made to feel betrayed and > hurt and jealous. A profound thought that deserves more attention, but, one that could be classified as rather abnormal in this culture and could be seen by others as more or less the same downing down of our morals and our society. How can we decry sexual displays on one hand and on the other put forth the notion that one on one relationships are somehow not correct? Who makes the rules? I surely don't have the answers any more than the next person, just my thoughts. mack
