Kathy Griffin finally goes over the edge

[mmhmm]

Jun 10, 2017 18:52:57 GMT -5 dezii said:

Jun 10, 2017 12:28:04 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Too true! However, I've done a bit of research. Louis Reard introduced the first publicly-seen, navel-baring bikini at a pool in Paris. Only upper-class Europeans would wear it, though. In the 1951 Miss World contest the bikini made an appearance but was, afterward, banned. It wasn't until the 60s that the US public started to wear them publicly. Interestingly, however, the bared navel goes back to pre-Roman times - mostly worn by female athletes. 

I vaguely remember when a frosh  at University...besides the beanies to be worn first week...there was a handbook of rules for guys and girls and believe in the section for the ladies ...not followed of course...but still one of the printed rules...the ladies were not to wear patent shoes...guess reflection or such..swear they were there...maybe do a google. The ladies has a curfew...believe 10:30 week nights...12:30 / 1:00 on weekend...possible seniors a bit later...always a big mosh pit in front of the doors to ladies residences as clocked ticked down...we guys could stay out all night...would go gor food after dropping ladies off...
Also not aware of drugs at this time...even grass...booze..?  Oh yeah...

Different time...big belief in domino theory politically in the world....you graduate and make $10,000 per year...your on the way to doing good....Purchased a very nice home with attached garage..nice lot..$13.500....Wife's income was not included when went to bank...belief was she would stop working when babies came...[true]  As said...different times...all males if fit served...just accepted....

I don't even have to Google the "no patent leather shoes rule", Dezi. I remember that one! 

[mmhmm]

Jun 10, 2017 22:35:50 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jun 10, 2017 10:59:58 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

LOL! I have absolutely no recollection of the time the belly button became public fodder! 

I Dream of Jeannie was the first show to bring it to the forefront. They designed her harem pants so her belly button was covered. shortly after that though the belly button began to gain acceptance.

The first instance of a non-accidental bared bellybutton is said to have occurred in the early 70s, thanks to Cher on The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour. (source)

The first TV navel exposure was in 1964, by Yvette Mimieux in the Dr. Kildare episode Tyger, Tyger.

[dezii]

Jun 10, 2017 23:16:43 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jun 10, 2017 18:52:57 GMT -5 dezii said:

I vaguely remember when a frosh  at University...besides the beanies to be worn first week...there was a handbook of rules for guys and girls and believe in the section for the ladies ...not followed of course...but still one of the printed rules...the ladies were not to wear patent shoes...guess reflection or such..swear they were there...maybe do a google. The ladies has a curfew...believe 10:30 week nights...12:30 / 1:00 on weekend...possible seniors a bit later...always a big mosh pit in front of the doors to ladies residences as clocked ticked down...we guys could stay out all night...would go gor food after dropping ladies off...
Also not aware of drugs at this time...even grass...booze..?  Oh yeah...

Different time...big belief in domino theory politically in the world....you graduate and make $10,000 per year...your on the way to doing good....Purchased a very nice home with attached garage..nice lot..$13.500....Wife's income was not included when went to bank...belief was she would stop working when babies came...[true]  As said...different times...all males if fit served...just accepted....

I don't even have to Google the "no patent leather shoes rule", Dezi. I remember that one! 

As said...thought I remembered that one...naturally a rule on the books but not followed  during my time but there anyway...

[Deleted]

Jun 10, 2017 23:21:44 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jun 10, 2017 22:35:50 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I Dream of Jeannie was the first show to bring it to the forefront. They designed her harem pants so her belly button was covered. shortly after that though the belly button began to gain acceptance.

The first instance of a non-accidental bared bellybutton is said to have occurred in the early 70s, thanks to Cher on The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour. (source)

The first TV navel exposure was in 1964, by Yvette Mimieux in the Dr. Kildare episode Tyger, Tyger.

My source apparently missed that one! (I wasn't guessing, though... I was quoting someone else when I said it was Cher).

IDoJ was the show that brought the issue to the public though as far as normalcy and repetitive viewability... because of her "skimpy" outfit that she wore every day on the show. While it DIDN'T show her belly button, it was belly baring at a time when belly-button-baring bikinis were starting to be seen out in the real world.

[Virgil Showlion]

When Mary Richards let the guy spend the night was when we turned the lights out on tv morality.

You jest, but my church teaches our dating teens that the date ends at the front door. No possibility of raging hormones getting out of hand. No possibility of unwanted pressure. No possibility of false accusations if the relationship ends badly.

The man does not cross the door; he does not confine himself in private with the woman. And if he forgets or disregards the rule, it's incumbent on the woman to lay down the law and insist he stay out.

Given the severity of the potential consequences, I agree 100% with the teaching. It would seem that 1950's society generally cared about the consequences too, and took similar precautions.

[weltschmerz]

You jest, but my church teaches our dating teens that the date ends at the front door. No possibility of raging hormones getting out of hand. No possibility of unwanted pressure. No possibility of false accusations if the relationship ends badly.

What about your dating adults? Mary Richards wasn't a teen.

[Deleted]

How about before the 50s?  

[Tennesseer]

Dating rites before the 1950s included gnawing on your date's arm.

[zibazinski]

Gomez and Morticia

[zibazinski]

I was very lucky in that group dating seem to be the thing in high school. My kids went everywhere in packs of kids. Even homecoming where everyone was dressed up and went in a limo there were 13 kids. I never knew who was the single and I don't think it mattered. Prom was the big sex pressure date and DS went once. Went with one girl and came home to breakfast with another to my house. I didn't ask but she dressed like a tramp so I'm assuming she wanted and expected sex and DS didn't oblige. Parents did meals all during the festivities. I was glad to do breakfast for 20 as opposed to any other meal.

[Deleted]

It's been interesting, from a homeschool perspective, where peer pressure is different generally. Some of the teens seem wholly uninterested in engaging in dating etc. while others seem to get right to it, even getting married asap. 

I guess family dynamics play as big as big a part as peers ? 

I do find it interesting that in my observation, it's those who are taught more about sex, don't seem to taboo sex but discuss it as a regular, but not end all be all of existance or relationships, where the kids seem to wait? Maybe I'm just not seeing everything? Maybe I know a lot of gangly introverts too? 

I know my friend who was the most adamantly preachy about no premarital sex and god is because, has 2 grandkids from unmarried children in their 20s and an 18 yr old who quit school and moved out asap with boyfriend. 

I think teaching sex as an issue of self respect and responsibility might work better than teaching it as a taboo against god?  But maybe personality, etc. are more at issue instead? 

[zibazinski]

I think, given that I had to by virtue of being the only parent, handled it as best I could. I'm not an expert myself so I got books for DS and told him why I did. If he had any questions after I'd do my best to answer. His main concern was getting body hair. He wasn't a fan of it but I pointed out it happens to everyone not just him so he wasn't a freak of nature. Plus, explaining mentrual cycles was fairly easy because he had seen me buying products over the years. Not that he was going to have them but he needed to be aware that women do and be conscious and considerate of that fact.

[Tennesseer]

Jun 12, 2017 6:42:16 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Jun 11, 2017 10:22:49 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You jest, but my church teaches our dating teens that the date ends at the front door. No possibility of raging hormones getting out of hand. No possibility of unwanted pressure. No possibility of false accusations if the relationship ends badly.

The man does not cross the door; he does not confine himself in private with the woman. And if he forgets or disregards the rule, it's incumbent on the woman to lay down the law and insist he stay out.

Given the severity of the potential consequences, I agree 100% with the teaching. It would seem that 1950's society generally cared about the consequences too, and took similar precautions.

In the house I grew up in teen dating was discouraged.  While my mother reluctantly agreed to let us go to high school dances, she thought the whole concept was immoral and ridiculous. She called many young American girls "sexpots", which I thought was a deliciously funny term.  But to her the concept of encouraging teen age sexuality was beyond ridiculous.  It would certainly come on naturally, and the only thing keeping it in check (other than adult disapproval) was kids own natural nervousness and hesitancy of the whole thing.  Why on earth would adults want to encourage kids to disregard that?  Years later, I think she was right, but of course that whole ship has long sailed.  We can biologically reproduce at about 13, and popular culture seems to promote that.

The chaperones at my high school's dances were the nuns who taught at the school. Th nuns knew dating in high school was inevitable. At the dances, and if we were dancing too close, we would get a tap on the should from the nuns with the comment, "Leave room for the holy spirit."

[weltschmerz]

Jun 12, 2017 6:54:46 GMT -5 oped said:

It's been interesting, from a homeschool perspective, where peer pressure is different generally. Some of the teens seem wholly uninterested in engaging in dating etc. while others seem to get right to it, even getting married asap. 

I guess family dynamics play as big as big a part as peers ? 

I do find it interesting that in my observation, it's those who are taught more about sex, don't seem to taboo sex but discuss it as a regular, but not end all be all of existance or relationships, where the kids seem to wait? Maybe I'm just not seeing everything? Maybe I know a lot of gangly introverts too? 

I know my friend who was the most adamantly preachy about no premarital sex and god is because, has 2 grandkids from unmarried children in their 20s and an 18 yr old who quit school and moved out asap with boyfriend. 

I think teaching sex as an issue of self respect and responsibility might work better than teaching it as a taboo against god?  But maybe personality, etc. are more at issue instead? 

My parents were very religious and incredibly strict. I wasn't allowed to date or do much of anything, for that matter.
So, what did I do? I took off and eloped.

[Deleted]

Jun 3, 2017 17:07:25 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 3, 2017 15:05:48 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

All that said...the part where I actually thought "Ok, she's lost it" was not the photo of her with Trump's severed head...but when the reaction from the Trump family (which wasn't that intense IMO) gets labeled by her as "bullying".

  Plan A: Solidify street cred with Trump's severed head gag. Public will love it! 

  Plan B: Convince skeptical public gag really wasn't so bad. Take a chill pill, people. 

  Plan C: Cry. A lot. Blame Trump. 

  Plan D: Call in favour from Bill Maher. Get him to say something that takes the focus off me.

....and 9 days later.  Kathy who ? 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 11, 2017 23:45:38 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

You jest, but my church teaches our dating teens that the date ends at the front door. No possibility of raging hormones getting out of hand. No possibility of unwanted pressure. No possibility of false accusations if the relationship ends badly.

What about your dating adults? Mary Richards wasn't a teen.

Same rules apply for all unmarried adults, but particularly to teenagers because they're impulsive, vulnerable (in a sense), and hormonal.

Generally speaking, the rule doesn't just apply to the dating or the unmarried. With reasonable exceptions, the church teaches (and I agree) that members ought to avoid situations where they find themselves sharing stretches of private time in close proximity to a member of the opposite sex¹. Hence no male bosses routinely pulling all-nighters with their female employees, etc., even if both are 100% uninterested in hanky-panky. It's protection for the man, protection for the woman, complete peace of mind for spouses (if either has one), and just plain prudent.

Jun 12, 2017 6:42:16 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Jun 11, 2017 10:22:49 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You jest, but my church teaches our dating teens that the date ends at the front door. No possibility of raging hormones getting out of hand. No possibility of unwanted pressure. No possibility of false accusations if the relationship ends badly.

The man does not cross the door; he does not confine himself in private with the woman. And if he forgets or disregards the rule, it's incumbent on the woman to lay down the law and insist he stay out.

Given the severity of the potential consequences, I agree 100% with the teaching. It would seem that 1950's society generally cared about the consequences too, and took similar precautions.

In the house I grew up in teen dating was discouraged.  While my mother reluctantly agreed to let us go to high school dances, she thought the whole concept was immoral and ridiculous. She called many young American girls "sexpots", which I thought was a deliciously funny term.  But to her the concept of encouraging teen age sexuality was beyond ridiculous.  It would certainly come on naturally, and the only thing keeping it in check (other than adult disapproval) was kids own natural nervousness and hesitancy of the whole thing.  Why on earth would adults want to encourage kids to disregard that?  Years later, I think she was right, but of course that whole ship has long sailed.  We can biologically reproduce at about 13, and popular culture seems to promote that.

My church doesn't discourage dating or discussing sex (in the proper setting). It does instruct unmarried members to not put themselves into certain compromising situations, one of which is the boy and girl (man and woman) being in close proximity in a private setting. This really wouldn't seem alien to somebody who was dating in the 1950's or earlier.

¹spouses and relatives excepted, of course

[Deleted]

See, the common thing is to project the 1959s onto 'earlier' ... as if the 1950s was the end of something, when it was more like a weird anomaly. Lots of earlier times when the tenets weren't nearly as strict as the 1950...

[mmhmm]

I was dating in the 50's, Virgil Showlion , ang your last sentence doesn't express reality, even in the midwest US where I grew up. Often, we dated in groups, or double dated with another couple. However, we sometimes went out with a friend of the opposite sex alone. We'd go to the drive-in movies, or just driving around. It wasn't considered wrong, or alien. Most of us had been taught what was right and what was not and we knew how to reach our parents if the need arose. I had only one situation in which it became necessary. Too often, today's younger folks have a very incorrect view of the 50s. Why, teens in the 40s actually got pregnant and had to be "sent away to visit an aunt who needed care", according to my mother.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 12, 2017 14:01:40 GMT -5 oped said:

See, the common thing is to project the 1959s onto 'earlier' ... as if the 1950s was the end of something, when it was more like a weird anomaly. Lots of earlier times when the tenets weren't nearly as strict as the 1950...

Yes and no.

The majority of society was agrarian prior to 1900, hence the concept of a suburban housewife who didn't have to get down and dirty milking the cows, hauling eggs to market, etc. was mostly confined to between 1900 and 1950.

Before this, women typically had many more children--sometimes as many as 12--and the family dynamic was quite different, especially on a farm.

Divorce was a big deal, however. Fornication and adultery were an extremely big deal outside of big cities. The big cities were the moral cesspits of the time, where the drinking, gambling, whoring, etc. would take place in earnest. But the vast majority of people didn't live in big cities.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 12, 2017 14:09:39 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I was dating in the 50's, Virgil Showlion , ang your last sentence doesn't express reality, even in the midwest US where I grew up. Often, we dated in groups, or double dated with another couple. However, we sometimes went out with a friend of the opposite sex alone. We'd go to the drive-in movies, or just driving around. It wasn't considered wrong, or alien. Most of us had been taught what was right and what was not and we knew how to reach our parents if the need arose. I had only one situation in which it became necessary. Too often, today's younger folks have a very incorrect view of the 50s.

Going to the drive-in or driving around with your date isn't a private setting.

We're talking about situations where the dating couple could jump each other's bones right there in the heat of passion.

Why, teens in the 40s actually got pregnant and had to be "sent away to visit an aunt who needed care", according to my mother.

I didn't know that!

And couples who use birth control sometimes still get pregnant! I guess that means there's no difference between using a condom and not using a condom!

[Deleted]

Bullshit. My great grandmother was father unknown. It wasn't a horrific thing. I read plenty of books written in a specific time that accurately reflect the age and it's not as 'clean cut' as you suggest. Rural also meant often no regular preacher and that didn't stop people from making it legal whenever he made the rounds. Etc.

It's like people thinking abortion was illegal always pre roe v wade. Not recognizing it was only about 100 years in which it was restricted.

[Deleted]

Hands up who ever got it on at the drive in...

Or driving around...

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 12, 2017 14:26:29 GMT -5 oped said:

Hands up who ever got it on at the drive in...

Or driving around...

When you weren't intending to?

And if so, then evidently my church needs to be stricter with its advice.

[Deleted]

Jun 12, 2017 14:28:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 12, 2017 14:26:29 GMT -5 oped said:

Hands up who ever got it on at the drive in...

Or driving around...

When you weren't intending to?

And if so, then evidently my church needs to be stricter with its advice.

You suggested these weren't private places where temptations could happen... I didn't. ?

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 12, 2017 14:25:43 GMT -5 oped said:

Bullshit. My great grandmother was father unknown. It wasn't a horrific thing. I read plenty of books written in a specific time that accurately reflect the age and it's not as 'clean cut' as you suggest. Rural also meant often no regular preacher and that didn't stop people from making it legal whenever he made the rounds. Etc.

It's like people thinking abortion was illegal always pre roe v wade. Not recognizing it was only about 100 years in which it was restricted.

It's not a question of "Did X happen prior to Y?" because the answer is always 'yes' and usually, 'yes, a lot'. That doesn't mean the rate of occurrence of any given vice wasn't drastically different from today.

It's a statistical question of how often it happened, where, and what the consequences were.

[weltschmerz]

My church doesn't discourage dating or discussing sex (in the proper setting). It does instruct unmarried members to not put themselves into certain compromising situations, one of which is the boy and girl (man and woman) being in close proximity in a private setting. This really wouldn't seem alien to somebody who was dating in the 1950's or earlier.

So, when you finally DO get married, you're marrying stranger.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 12, 2017 14:33:34 GMT -5 oped said:

Jun 12, 2017 14:28:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

When you weren't intending to?

And if so, then evidently my church needs to be stricter with its advice.

You suggested these weren't private places where temptations could happen... I didn't. ?

If a boy and girl driving to a restaurant or sitting in a theater (since drive-ins don't exist anymore) are tempted to jump each other's bones in those respective venues, then by all means they should include them on the list of exclusions.

If the 1950's drive-ins were conducive to couples having sex in their cars, then I would also include those on the list of exclusions. Those who didn't might well have wound up jumping each other's bones during movies, possibly without any prior intention of doing so.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 12, 2017 14:40:06 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

My church doesn't discourage dating or discussing sex (in the proper setting). It does instruct unmarried members to not put themselves into certain compromising situations, one of which is the boy and girl (man and woman) being in close proximity in a private setting. This really wouldn't seem alien to somebody who was dating in the 1950's or earlier.

So, when you finally DO get married, you're marrying stranger.

Of course not. That's why you date.

You can spend as much time as you like together, as long as it's in public, or in company, or otherwise in a situation where you're not reasonably going to be tempted to have sex, like driving to a restaurant or riding your bikes to school together.

[weltschmerz]

Jun 12, 2017 14:45:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 12, 2017 14:40:06 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

So, when you finally DO get married, you're marrying stranger.

Of course not. That's why you date.

You can spend as much time as you like together, as long as it's in public, or in company, or otherwise in a situation where you're not reasonably going to be tempted to have sex, like driving to a restaurant or riding your bikes to school together.

So, when you finally DO get married, you're marrying a stranger.

[Deleted]

Drive ins do exist. We looove ours!