"Celebrities Today Are Bad Role Models" or "Slow News Day"

[Seil]

Link (http://www.theprovince.com/entertainment/Rihanna+brings+oversexualized+Vancouver/8160218/story.html)

To use the language of the masses, WTF?

It’s time to put on the brakes, people. Time to say stop.

But how can we, when the generation of young women in the spotlight is increasingly sexual and sells that fact to their very young fans?

Have you seen the former Disney divas in Spring Breakers? Well, let’s just say those girls are running away from their squeaky-clean images as fast as they can in tiny bikinis.

Here on Monday is one of the biggest bare-it-all stars, the 25-year-old Barbadian beauty Rihanna, who proudly waves the sexualization-equals-success banner.

The show is at Rogers Arena and, make no mistake, it is a show.

But, sorry — no matter how many hits, costume changes or spectacular sets you haul out, I just can¹t cheer for a young woman singing songs about a boy “going downtown,” and she doesn’t mean shopping, as thrilled tweens squeal with delight.

Or, how about donning bondage wear and singing to a crowd full of smartphone-waving girls the words: “I may be bad but I’m perfectly good at it. Sex in the air I don’t care I love the smell of it. Sticks and stones may break my bones but chains and whips excite me.”

So why do girls respond to this? Why is there a rush to push girls in this direction?

The answer is simple: The message is understandable, marketable, affordable and the media loves it.

Yes, it sucks that while Facebook COO, and now bestselling author, Sheryl Sandberg is telling women to “lean in,” Rihanna is saying lean back and stick your chest out.

Of course, aside from the over-sexualized songs and skimpy, not to mention horrible (hello-mom-jeans meets Pussy Cat Dolls) fashion sense, Rihanna has been on the hot seat for her choice in men. Or should we say, her choice in spoiled, violent jerks.

Yes, she went back to the guy (not mentioning his name because I don’t want to give him any publicity) who beat the hell out of her.

So I'm not really advocating the behavior of Rihanna, and while it's hard to shield children from every bit of radio and television that you wouldn't consider "wholesome," (or nearly impossible) do we really need it pointed out that these celebrities maybe aren't the best role models?

I'm not going to have my future kid sit through re-runs of Mr. Dressup and Mr. Rogers until they're in their twenties (and because that would result in a creepy effing child) because I know that through advertising, mass media and even their own friends, they'll hear about things like sex, drugs and whatever before I think that they'll be ready to comprehend them on more levels than "it's cool Seb!" (Because my hypothetical kid is named Sebastian.) Hell, I'm not even ready to understand that stuff.

I think my biggest complaint about this article is that the woman ranting doesn't seem to talk to her child. She watches her coloring in a Strawberry Shortcake book, and rants about Rihanna for a page and a half. At no point does she stop, sit down and go "Hey, Camille, (in this article I imagine the kid's name to be Camille.) what are you doing? That's a short skirt that girl is wearing, huh?"

[Kim]

This is a horrifyingly sexist article and I'm not remotely surprised by that.

No, that it was written by a woman doesn't change that.

Policing how women dress is sexist as fuck.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

And America continues to get worse. While I know what she's worried about. Too much light, too much control is just as bad as no control.


Simply talking to your kids is enough. If you're parant, do your job and regulate what your kids sees and be sure to talk to them. Forcing the country's media to get kid friendly is a bit too controlling.

[Kim]

Honestly, our ideas of what's "kid friendly" are absolutely laughable.

[POS Industries]

I think conservative pundits are probably worse role models than pop stars.

[Azisien]

But Rihanna getting back with the guy that beat the shit-fuck out of her is a perfect example of What Not To Do for my kids. And as long as we're dissecting other people's personal lives, man, that was dumb as fuck. On the other hand, mini-skirts are awesome. They're almost better than income tax refunds, and you get them around the same time up north!

Shielding kids from the horrors of the world is doing them a disservice. Better to prepare them for it, with education n' stuff.

Or, hey. Maybe breeding at all is a disservice. Maybe the bad role models are any parents, ever, because they bred more humans. Yeah, that line of thinking should please the cynics.

[mauve]

...Has there ever been a time when celebrities have NOT been bad role models?

[Seil]

Batman is still pretty neat, though. (http://www.denverpost.com/theatershooting/ci_21147699/)

[Grimpond]

But Rihanna getting back with the guy that beat the shit-fuck out of her is a perfect example of What Not To Do for my kids. And as long as we're dissecting other people's personal lives, man, that was dumb as fuck. On the other hand, mini-skirts are awesome. They're almost better than income tax refunds, and you get them around the same time up north!

Shielding kids from the horrors of the world is doing them a disservice. Better to prepare them for it, with education n' stuff.

Or, hey. Maybe breeding at all is a disservice. Maybe the bad role models are any parents, ever, because they bred more humans. Yeah, that line of thinking should please the cynics.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_abuse

Here you go Azisien. THis should clarify some things. Also, why is Rihanna the dumb one when she's the victim?

Why nothing about Chris Brown, the man who willingly beat another person?

[Krylo]

This is a horrifyingly sexist article and I'm not remotely surprised by that.

No, that it was written by a woman doesn't change that.

Policing how women dress is sexist as fuck.

That is like, not even the tip of the iceberg on this, in my opinion.

You have the whole 'woman's sexuality is bad' thing progressing well beyond just dress and into how women apparently shouldn't sing songs about receiving oral sex (but no one's complaining about Slow Ride by Foghat). There's the blaming Rihanna for getting back together with her abuser. There's just. . .

I'm pretty sure it actually just hits on every possible bit of misogyny such an article could possibly hit on.

[Kim]

Yeah. Naming all the ways this article is fucked up would be an exhausting exercise.

---------- Post added at 07:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------

And yeah, HOW ABOUT WE CARE MORE ABOUT THE GUY WHO BEAT HIS GIRLFRIEND THAN WHAT THE VICTIM DECIDES TO DO WITH HER LIFE.

WHILE WE'RE AT IT, LET'S ALSO GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ABUSIVE FAMOUS MEN WHO /AREN'T/ BLACK

[Odjn]

Honestly, our ideas of what's "kid friendly" are absolutely laughable.

Considering throughout a significant period of human history families lived in one room shelters where literally everything was on display, it's kind of silly we have the modern "kids are innocent and we need to protect them" thing.

Also it's a tangent but kids used to be shoved into work before puberty set in and so the whole modern childhood thing is a fairly recent creation.

[Azisien]

Also, why is Rihanna the dumb one when she's the victim?

Why nothing about Chris Brown, the man who willingly beat another person?

a) Multiple people can be dumb. Wacky, I know.
b) He's a piece of shit...? Everyone here already knows this, as evidenced. I purposefully didn't name him out of lack of respect, but glad I also gave people the chance to dog-pile too.

[Grimpond]

so, you're just ignoring what was wrong with your statement? Your condescending tone isn't much appreciated either.

And just because "everyone knows" doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned! especially when it's integral to your disparaging comment about rihanna being the dumb one. The fact that you only focused on her perceived faults is neglecting the larger picture of what's happened to her.

It gives an incomplete idea that she's the one at fault for the abusive relationship when she's a victim of it.

[Aerozord]

...Has there ever been a time when celebrities have NOT been bad role models?

yea I mean when I was growing up gang violence was considered trendy. Extending from innocent fads to children enacting murder to emulate these people.

If your child rebels against you by simply wearing a short skirt consider yourself lucky. History is full of far worse.

[Marc v4.0]

If my child rebels against me by wearing a short skirt, he damn well better accessorize properly or it's 2 weeks being grounded.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

But Rihanna getting back with the guy that beat the shit-fuck out of her is a perfect example of What Not To Do for my kids. And as long as we're dissecting other people's personal lives, man, that was dumb as fuck. On the other hand, mini-skirts are awesome. They're almost better than income tax refunds, and you get them around the same time up north!

Shielding kids from the horrors of the world is doing them a disservice. Better to prepare them for it, with education n' stuff.

Or, hey. Maybe breeding at all is a disservice. Maybe the bad role models are any parents, ever, because they bred more humans. Yeah, that line of thinking should please the cynics.

Eh that depends on the age and the kid's mentality. I found out about the horrors of the world when I was 13. I'm 23 and still recovering from that. Where as other kids can handle this without losing their childhood or minds.

[Azisien]

just because "everyone knows" doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned! especially when it's integral to your disparaging comment about rihanna being the dumb one. The fact that you only focused on her perceived faults is neglecting the larger picture of what's happened to her.

It gives an incomplete idea that she's the one at fault for the abusive relationship when she's a victim of it.

I didn't say she was being "the" dumb one, I said she was dumb. That I focused on her is actually coincidence, since I was only commenting on her specifically as a role model. Chris Brown is no longer ignored, as we've been talking about him for 4 posts now.

To your last point however, definitely, Chris Brown is a shitstick, and I'm not an expert in the case, but he seemed to get off fairly light. I hope he did some good with his community service, and maybe got some counseling and won't beat the shit out of people, especially significant others, anymore.

That being said, Rihanna was a victim of assault and that was one thing. Long after that fact, consciously getting back with her assaulter - rigorous psychological studies or no! - is dumb, and I stand by my criticism of the action.

[Loyal]

Considering, among other things, Chris Brown has a not-insignificant number of fans who glorify his abusive ways, I rather doubt he'll ever see the error of his ways in anything resembling a permanent fashion.

[Azisien]

Considering, among other things, Chris Brown has a not-insignificant number of fans who glorify his abusive ways, I rather doubt he'll ever see the error of his ways in anything resembling a permanent fashion.

Welp that got me googling "People who defend Chris Brown" and now the results are making me kind of melancholy.

[RobinStarwing]

Would this permanency involve bobbiting? I'm all for cutting off Chris Brown's so-called manhood.

As my response. I got no issues with sexuality and women. What I got issues is when it is the only thing that can get women ahead. It says my gender is full of stupid fucks. End of story.

[Seil]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u59/Poetisch/mTkVn-1_zpsbb323e57.jpg

[Loyal]

Would this permanency involve bobbiting? I'm all for cutting off Chris Brown's so-called manhood.

As my response. I got no issues with sexuality and women. What I got issues is when it is the only thing that can get women ahead. It says my gender is full of stupid fucks. End of story.
Could we maybe lay off the genital mutilation, a tad, male or female, it's a wee bit... offputting.

[Kim]

Chris Brown gets defended the FUCK out of, people who don't defend him don't mention that he's a fucked up piece of shit, instead choosing to victim blame a woman and police her choices. Let her live her fucking life.

[Aerozord]

Chris Brown gets defended the FUCK out of, people who don't defend him don't mention that he's a fucked up piece of shit, instead choosing to victim blame a woman and police her choices. Let her live her fucking life.

her being stupid and him being a horrible human being are not mutually exclusive

[Marc v4.0]

her being stupid and him being a horrible human being are not mutually exclusive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_abuse


READ.

[Kim]

her being stupid and him being a horrible human being are not mutually exclusive

her deciding to pursue a relationship with someone with an awful past, fully aware of that past as a victim of it, does not in fact make her stupid

you do not know either of them

you do not know her reasons for restarting a relationship with him

this thread has spent more time shaming a woman for her relationship choices than a man for being violent and abusive

this thread is sexist as fuck

[Arcanum]

her deciding to pursue a relationship with someone with an awful past, fully aware of that past as a victim of it, does not in fact make her stupid

Sounds pretty stupid to me, and I would be saying that whether the victim was male or female.

Like the old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

this thread has spent more time shaming a woman for her relationship choices than a man for being violent and abusive


this thread is sexist as fuck

So spending time discussing a controversial issue that plagues a lot of females, while simultaneously avoiding everyone going "Yeah Chris Brown is terrible, he is scum" and constantly agreeing that he is scum because such a "conversation" would lead nowhere and would just be everyone affirming that he is scum, is sexist?

[Kim]

I'm glad that a thread about an incredibly sexist article devolved into the men of NPF dogpiling over one another to see who can be the most sexist.

THIS WOMAN IS STUPID BECAUSE SHE MADE A RELATIONSHIP DECISION BASED ON MORE INFO AND A MORE INTIMATE UNDERSTANDING OF A SITUATION THAN I HAVE BUT I DON'T LIKE HER DECISION SO I'LL INSULT HER

because clearly insulting women for their own personal choices isn't sexist at all except it is really fucking sexist

[synkr0nized]

Chris Brown is a terrible human being.
Abuse victims likely make a poor choice when they get back together with their abuser. We all make poor choices; the problem in this instance is that society stops at calling it a poor choice rather than, I don't know, helping victims realize it even is a choice or helping to prevent those situations from being a thing at all.

Regardless this isn't news. Celebrity coverage rarely is.
No worthwhile news outlet should print an article that shames an abuse victim.

[Arcanum]

I'm glad that a thread about an incredibly sexist article devolved into the men of NPF dogpiling over one another to see who can be the most sexist.

THIS WOMAN IS STUPID BECAUSE SHE MADE A RELATIONSHIP DECISION BASED ON MORE INFO AND A MORE INTIMATE UNDERSTANDING OF A SITUATION THAN I HAVE BUT I DON'T LIKE HER DECISION SO I'LL INSULT HER

because clearly insulting women for their own personal choices isn't sexist at all except it is really fucking sexist

Apparently me saying that sex/gender has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter still makes me sexist.

http://i.imgur.com/u5iLky8.jpg

[Marc v4.0]

This is clearly going to get you places, Arcy

[POS Industries]

Apparently me saying that sex/gender has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter still makes me sexist.

http://i.imgur.com/u5iLky8.jpg
Given that you are criticizing a woman for putting herself in a potential situation where she can be victimized in a way that is experienced far more often by women than men, the gender-neutrality clause of your statement carries little weight.

Kim and Marc could certainly stand to dial it back a little, as could you, but their point is no less valid. The vast majority of domestic abuse is committed by men against women, so while I'm sure you probably would say the same thing if it were a man in the situation, the fact is that you will rarely have such an opportunity, so your statement is sexist because the problem involved is sexist.

Also, victim blaming is awfully shitty in general. Really, it should be "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, FUCKING SHAME ON YOU."

[Ryong]

I was going to make a crazy post about how my family's trouble with abuse in the past and how the victim needs help standing up for herself and how you can't change some people and so on but no, fuck that. This is not that post. This is a different post.

Chris Brown is an asshole whose environment said it was a-okay to be an asshole, repeatedly, until it blew up on his face and some people started calling him out on it but it doesn't fucking matter because he has people who think he's alright. Yes, it's fucked up.

Rihanna needs to acknowledge what she's doing and how it's her choice to be with him. I'm going to take a wild guess here and say she probably thinks 1)it's not happening again and 2)she can change him. These have a tendency to be delusions from abuse victims.

Are these the points everyone's been trying to make? Fuck if I know, I hope so.

Meanwhile, I'm voting for this post (http://nuklearforums.com/showpost.php?p=1207699&postcount=191) be somehow made into required reading for discussion or at least some variation of it ( since this one was kind of personal ).

[Odjn]

It's a pretty stupid thing to do. It's her life though.

[shiney]

Rihanna needs actual help and support to break the cycle, and Chris Brown should probably just fall into obscurity. I can only hope that his very public persona and their relationship continues to bring light on the problem of the cycle of abuse and that he keeps getting shamed.

I do wish Rihanna hadn't gotten back together with him because it made it a lot easier for his supporters to keep being dickbags, but it is her life and choice. Anyhow Brown is the monster here and I for one wouldn't complain if his next music video featured him catching fire and then everyone stood around not putting it out. Just sayin'.

There are few people involved in this story that can be considered a good role model in any case. Rihanna promotes the sexualization of women for no good purpose other than money and fame. Brown represents many of the more despicable aspects of humanity. *shrug*

[Aerozord]

There are few people involved in this story that can be considered a good role model in any case. Rihanna promotes the sexualization of women for no good purpose other than money and fame.
This is where my personal beliefs usually conflict with reality. The point of role models is to inspire someone to succeed. And well, that method works. Yea I'd rather see people aspire to succeed and become famous through charity or science or even just legit artistic ability. But lets be realistic here, looks are a far bigger factor in our culture.

This goes for men and women.

There is a reason TV and movies have all organizations staffed by a crack team of highly trained super models

[shiney]

While I agree with you, that doesn't make it any more ethical that we are supposed to admire these people because they are talented and attractive. Why can't we admire people who are simply talented? We as a society place looks on a higher and more important pedestal than we do ability and that's something that really should change as it disenfranchises the entire portion of the populace who aren't hot by today's standards.

Arguments can be made regarding people like Christopher Walken or whatever, pretty unlikely to win the swimsuit competition, but how many young singers or actors/actresses do we have that aren't judged based on how fuckable they are instead of how talented they are? The promoters and consumers are equally as guilty in this honestly...we are marketed to and we happily accept it. They are all bad role models because they continue to create and recycle the perception that who you are is based largely on how you look.

[Osterbaum]

Ideas of beauty are quite subjective and have changed according to time and place (ie. culture). I suppose society's current ideas of beauty and what is attractive are based on several complicated factors. But the fact of how important beauty has become has, in my opinion, clearer causes. Beauty sells, and because everything that might net a profit will eventually be exploited by someone to make a profit and because we live in a profit oriented system, thus beauty has increased importance. Because it has market value.

This is really just something that occurred to me right this minute, so not exactly a perfectly fleshed out idea I've read tons on.

[Azisien]

People keep getting uppity about a pretty simple point, and so far this is only an example of crazy NPF is on throwing up social justice flags sometimes. TO BE SURE, most of the time it is with good cause, but this, right here, is just a poor mixture of membership hatred plus the fact that every person is open to criticism for their actions, not just oppressors*.

I'm waiting to read an actual argument, like Grimpond actually gave an effort, and although my initial intent in not mentioning Chris Brown was quite innocent, it was a good point that we should probably preface all our posts by reiterating his status as a piece of shit for abusing women. Everything after that, calling us sexist, calling men sexist, is plainly horseshit at this point.

This whole thread was about celebrities, people who have the public spotlights shone upon them and pedestals artificially raised above the crowd of human peasants. Insofar as that is the topic, yes, I'll use my non-personal amount of information at hand to make criticisms of celebrity actions. Including relationship decisions when one person was a victim of abuse some months earlier and one person was the abuser, the abuser performed his legal obligations from the legal punishment, but otherwise didn't show much remorse at all, nor explained to his fanbase how terrible the thing that he did was. And then they got back together.

Anyway, let's get it out there to even up the Rihanna-Was-Dumb:Chris-Brown-Is-Shit ratio. Chris Brown is a piece of shit.

Notice how in no way I am asking for control of her actions. Everybody is correct, in fact, she can do as she likes. She can also go jump into a mother bear's cage and punch the bear's cubs in the face. I wish her luck. She is still dumb. She is dumb because she should not do the action that she did. If I did the exact same action, I would be dumb. I HAVE been in (largely non-physical) abusive relationships before, though they were mutually so, they did have that cyclical pattern to them (and thank you for that reference, Grimpond and only Grimpond). And now that I'm well clear of them, what do I think of my actions in the past? They were dumb.

Just like Rihanna's was. That's it.

Rihanna needs actual help and support to break the cycle,

Now this I am totally for! And who can say why this did not happen? Her net worth is somewhere around $50 million? She's famous, and while many folks defended Chris Brown, a lot of folks also supported her and decried him. If there's a mystery in this, it is probably that. I suppose it's possible she needed a supportive circle of friends, not money, but I don't even know what she has access to. Money buys a lot of stuff though, so I still feel extremely confident calling her decision a stupid one.

Anyhow Brown is the monster here and I for one wouldn't complain if his next music video featured him catching fire and then everyone stood around not putting it out.

(normally undetectable sarcasm)
My goodness! This man with an abusive past who was lawfully punished for his crimes was set fire and no one did anything! And you approve of it! Who is the real monster here? This thread is sadist as fuck!
(/end normally undetected sarcasm)

[Osterbaum]

Are we seriously having this argument again?

She is still dumb. She is dumb because she should not do the action that she did.
Like really, why are you insisting about how dumb she is? At most you could maybe say that she made a dumb choice which it's quite likely she made because maybe she is a victim of abuse stuck in a cycle. Pointing out how dumb Rihanna is for the decisions she's made is not only counter productive but also a bit sexist, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the larger issue.

Given that you are criticizing a woman for putting herself in a potential situation where she can be victimized in a way that is experienced far more often by women than men, the gender-neutrality clause of your statement carries little weight.

Kim and Marc could certainly stand to dial it back a little, as could you, but their point is no less valid. The vast majority of domestic abuse is committed by men against women, so while I'm sure you probably would say the same thing if it were a man in the situation, the fact is that you will rarely have such an opportunity, so your statement is sexist because the problem involved is sexist.

Also, victim blaming is awfully shitty in general. Really, it should be "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, FUCKING SHAME ON YOU."

[Azisien]

Well actually I just went to bed, woke up, read the thread's replies, and made one reply of my own. The larger issue was not ignored, it was covered. Supporting Chris Brown would be 'sexist as fuck.' No one here did that. No one. As for why I have to repeat myself so much in general, I'm not sure. I thought my point was pretty simple.

e- Whether someone is caught in a cycle or not does not void the dumbness or not-dumbness of their actions. Rihanna in particular has access to a ludicrous amount of support. And shitstain as Chris Brown is, and shitstain as much of society is for defending HIS actions, there was a large pool of supporters for Rihanna and decriers for Chris Brown. This was not a one-sided event.

But you're right, that point has been covered well enough. I am finished with it.

[Aerozord]

While I agree with you, that doesn't make it any more ethical that we are supposed to admire these people because they are talented and attractive. Why can't we admire people who are simply talented? We as a society place looks on a higher and more important pedestal than we do ability and that's something that really should change as it disenfranchises the entire portion of the populace who aren't hot by today's standards.

because its fairly ingrained on a primal level. What we view as beauty is because its a sign of good genes, health, and prosperity.

Though in all honesty while I view it as better to value factors other than looks, I wouldn't call it more fair. If we valued intelligence the most is that fair to those not born with a high IQ or in a region with poorer education?

[Sifright]

because its fairly ingrained on a primal level. What we view as beauty is because its a sign of good genes, health, and prosperity.

Ahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahh ahahaha

Nope.

[Kim]

what we view as beauty are gross, gender-essentialist, racist-as-fuck, ever-changing standards rooted in culture

saying its about good genes is the sort of bullshit biotruth bullshit people use to excuse their totally awful bullshit

it's all lies

[Kyanbu The Legend]

because its fairly ingrained on a primal level. What we view as beauty is because its a sign of good genes, health, and prosperity.

Though in all honesty while I view it as better to value factors other than looks, I wouldn't call it more fair. If we valued intelligence the most is that fair to those not born with a high IQ or in a region with poorer education?

Well it's more based on appearance and money, as far as society is concerned. Which is all kinds of messed up.

Honestly the whole concept of relationships is questionable when you think about it.

[Osterbaum]

Our concepts of beauty are much more rooted in social norms than any signs clearly indicating better genes. There might be some (relatively minor) physical traits that are considered to be universally attractive in humans. But it's pretty clear just from interacting with people that we've got tons of different tastes and preferences in men and women. We're social animals and if society tells us what we're supposed to find attractive then we might tend to conform, at least to a point, because of an inherent desire to belong.

[shiney]

Genetically speaking, beauty is based on what superficial looks and personality traits are most likely to ensure someone has sex with your offspring, ensuring continued survival of your bloodline. Society however is what dictates which of those looks are the most important hence our current trends of what is beauty in the west.

There are some scientific studies regarding symmetry, waist-to-hip ratio and other such, but those are based largely on western values as well. In older times completely different standards of beauty existed. In eastern cultures different standards exist. It's mainly in the mass-marketed hyper-aware western world that women are really forced to conform to what the media-driven ideal of beauty is. And the negative impact that has on our culture and the lives of countless women is something that can never truly be measured and will only be felt through deepening crises of depression and self-hatred that these girls and women experience.

It's particularly difficult because the only real ways to fight it are advocacy and refusal to consume. Advocacy is suppressed because the channels available for large audiences are controlled by the interests that promote the sexualized image, and refusal to consume is difficult because everydamnthing uses sex to market their product. I'm going to go on a damn rampage the first time I hear my daughter complain she's too far, and I bet she will be like six.

Of particular note: here's one of the more despicable points of evidence (http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=9041941) to show the hyper-sexualization of young teen girls, purposefully and marketed toward them. What a society we live in, when profits and sex are more important than allowing children to grow up without feeling persecuted and ugly!

Edit: the article seems to portray VS in almost a beneficial light by printing their excuse at the bottom, but their CEO has come out on record and said this product is being mareketed toward 15 or 16 year old girls so they can feel cool like the college girls. You know, cool as in "I should be having more sex."

[Aerozord]

Thats why I added prosperity in my description. Humans associate certain appearance traits, fashion or a nice car for example, with success. This both indicates an ability to support offspring as well as an assumption said offspring can benefit from it.

There is also association which is a deep part of sexual psychology. The psychological definition of a fetish (or maybe that was a kink, I often got the text book definition confused) is something your mind has linked to the concept of sex and thus invokes sexual arousal. This is important to our discussion because celebrities are a huge factor. Celebrities are attractive, successful, and rich. Which makes them desirable. Thus things you associate with them, fashion, personality traits, ect. Create a subconscious preference for these things.

Of course everything is highly complex so its not like this is some universal truth. But it does contribute to over arching trends. Even if its not sexually treated, human desire 'to belong' spreads it further. I doubt little girls realize why the older girls are dressing sexy. They just view it as how they should dress since everyone else is and they dont want to be the outcaste

[Magus]

Jesus is the only role model for our children. Robes and sandals, people.

[Seil]

Jesus is the only role model for our children. Robes and sandals, people.

But no socks and sandals, that's just awful.

For real, though, I think Jesus is a pretty neat guy. As a role model, he's perfect. Like, literally.

[Revising Ocelot]

As a role model, he's perfect. Like, literally.

Naw man, he died. I intend to live forever.