749 replies to this topic

[Adamal]

Be careful not to lump everyone in with me.  My reasons may be different from others'.  Also, I agree that God gave us the ability to think logically ... and that he expects us to use that ability.  I try to use it every day, as a matter of fact.  If I didn't, I wouldn't make a very good corporate attorney.

I am not lumping everyone in with you. I've read just about every post in this thread. Based on their posts I summed it up. I admit I generalized it but I felt the generalization made sense.

[nomoser]

Did you know that you can link posts so that when referring folks to them they can click on the link? 

Are they lengthy posts or can you sum it up in a couple of sentences?

Sorry about that. I was going to do that but had to run to a meeting so short-changed the message.

Post # 538: http://www.tomatopag...indpost&p=37921

Post # 539: http://www.tomatopag...indpost&p=37927

[pampChefLady]

Agreed. AND like I said before, I don't appreciate all the nearly naked models' posters outside of those stores. Now that my son is 16, I hate going by there with him - I don't think it gives him a healthy respect for women nor a very realistic expectation of most women. One last note, we don't really have any control about what goes into Roseville Mall, but we did have some influence on what would be in our town.

Nice lingerie? No problem. Other stuff and/or gratuitous sexiness in a historic family neighborhood? Problem.

Dang it, now I've responded again

billsfan:

I addressed this issue early in this discussion, and was jumped on because of my answer.  But, hey, I'll live dangerously and restate my thoughts.

Like you billsfan, I also "kinda squirm" when going past these shops in malls, expecially if I am shopping with my two boys.  I usually scope out these stores and try to casually cross to the other side of the mall corridor to avoid passing directly in front of their windows.

Eventhough there exist stores with less than desirable/objectionable items in malls, other cities or even other streets in Folsom, it does not mean that we must be happy about inviting an adult-oriented lingerie shop to Sutter St.

[Cloud9]

Sorry nomo, I must be obtuse because I don't see anything in those posts that would lead me to better understand the root cause of why you oppose the shop.

Some reasons I can readily understand, although I may not agree. For example,
- concern of potential negative impact on property values
- desire to have everyone believe the same as one does
- belief in their moral superiority based on religious ethics, etc.
- deconstruction of Sutter St. historical significance
- children's exposure to the material
- etc.

Are these the same for you? One or more, additional reasons not listed here?

[pampChefLady]

I am not lumping everyone in with you.  I've read just about every post in this thread.  Based on their posts I summed it up.  I admit I generalized it but I felt the generalization made sense.

You know, plenty of us gave "logical" reasons having to do with family, the people it'd attract and such, without any kind of "God says no lingerie" lectures. Just because YOU don't agree with the logic or conclusions, doesn't give you the right to paint us all as wackos - as you've implied repeatedly. I think it'd be much more appropriate for you to say, "I don't really think that'd happen, but I see why you'd be concerned if it did."

[YabYum]

Agreed. AND like I said before, I don't appreciate all the nearly naked models' posters outside of those stores.  Now that my son is 16, I hate going by there with him - I don't think it gives him a healthy respect for women nor a very realistic expectation of most women. 

and how, may i ask, do you intend to SHELTER your 16 yr old son from these sorts of images on tv? the internet? movies? magazines? etc.etc. Morals and values are taught in the home, not by the media. What your son chooses to digest and believe is his and only his decision. Leading him thru life with blinders on does not "protect" anyone....

In fact, I can virtually guarantee that your son sees this same stuff (actually, probably WORSE) on a daily basis at school, and talks about this stuff with his friends as well.......At some point you need to let go and let him define his own morals and values and be held accountable for his own life-decisions (which need to be respected).

Nice lingerie? No problem.  Other stuff and/or gratuitous sexiness in a historic family neighborhood? Problem.

and , let me guess: you'll be the judge of store content?

[nomoser]

Sorry nomo, I must be obtuse because I don't see anything in those posts that would lead me to better understand the root cause of why you oppose the shop.

Some reasons I can readily understand, although I may not agree.  For example,
- concern of potential negative impact on property values
- desire to have everyone believe the same as one does
- belief in their moral superiority based on religious ethics, etc.
- deconstruction of Sutter St. historical significance
- children's exposure to the material
- etc.

Are these the same for you?  One or more, additional reasons not listed here?

Ah ... I was responding to something else. Those links were to respond to the bold and 14 point font comment that it's just lingerie, what's the big deal.

To your questions, my personal opposition to the shop is, indeed, on moral grounds. In saying that, I do not think everyone has to believe like me, or that I am "morally superior." Am I a "prude"? Perhaps. Do I think sexual relations should only be for procreation? No. But I don't agree with selling sex, with the proliferation of sexual images on television, magazines, store windows, etc. PampChef suggested that it tends to negatively affect the views that men have about women. I agree with that. I think it distorts what people think about what women are or what they should be or how they should act.

I'll even go one step further to help you understand my mindset. I believe that sexual relations ought to stay within marriage ... and I mean people that are married to each other, by the way. Call me "old fashioned," call me "Quaker," but that is what I believe. I have no doubt that my views on this will be roundly criticized, but they are, in the end, my views.

Hope that helps you get where I am coming from.

[Chad Vander Veen]

Geez, and I thought I was very conservative. You people make me look like Ted Kennedy.

[Orangetj]

Geez, and I thought I was very conservative. You people make me look like Ted Kennedy.

Not Ted Nugent?

[Cloud9]

Ah ... I was responding to something else.  Those links were to respond to the bold and 14 point font comment that it's just lingerie, what's the big deal.

To your questions, my personal opposition to the shop is, indeed, on moral grounds.  In saying that, I do not think everyone has to believe like me, or that I am "morally superior."  Am I a "prude"?  Perhaps.  Do I think sexual relations should only be for procreation?  No.  But I don't agree with selling sex, with the proliferation of sexual images on television, magazines, store windows, etc.  PampChef suggested that it tends to negatively affect the views that men have about women.  I agree with that.  I think it distorts what people think about what women are or what they should be or how they should act. 

I'll even go one step further to help you understand my mindset.  I believe that sexual relations ought to stay within marriage ... and I mean people that are married to each other, by the way.  Call me "old fashioned," call me "Quaker," but that is what I believe.  I have no doubt that my views on this will be roundly criticized, but they are, in the end, my views. 

Hope that helps you get where I am coming from.

Fair enough. But aren't you, through opposition, essentially supporting a view that everyone does have to believe in your morality? (As opposed to allowing the store to exist and not frequenting the establishment which leaves room for both).

My quandary comes from the following - If you've never viewed such sexual imagery, etc. how could you know what you're commenting on? And if you have been exposed and believe that it distorts what people think about women, then are you saying that your own thinking on the subject of women is distorted? Is your position that we're 'brainwashed' by the imagery?

There have been numerous studies with cultures that have no access to any media, and the men in those groups, upon being shown the silhouettes of different shaped women, consistently choose the hourglass shaped figures.

Studies have also been done with children under 18months that have had no exposure to television, magazines, etc. - they're shown the faces of beautiful women, average women and women that were less than blessed. Can you guess which ones they choose consistently regardless of race or ethnicity?

For those that have children who one day will be on their own and make their own moral decisions, it's not enough to shield them from every aspect of human sexuality and then expect that they be able to make the decisions you might wish without any understanding of what it is they should be avoiding and why.

[Adamal]

You know, plenty of us gave "logical" reasons having to do with family, the people it'd attract and such, without any kind of "God says no lingerie" lectures.  Just because YOU don't agree with the logic or conclusions, doesn't give you the right to paint us all as wackos - as you've implied repeatedly.  I think it'd be much more appropriate for you to say, "I don't really think that'd happen, but I see why you'd be concerned if it did."

I never painted you as wackos and I don't think you or anyone else with your view point are. What I am saying is that you haven't made your case. You say it would attract the wrong croud. Where is the proof of this? I've seen none so the argument doesn't make any sense. Second part, you say it will hurt families. Again where is your proof.

I don't mind the fact that you don't want the shop there. I'm just looking for reasons why I shouldn't want the shop there. So far I haven't seen any.

[Adamal]

Fair enough.  But aren't you, through opposition, essentially supporting a view that everyone does have to believe in your morality?  (As opposed to allowing the store to exist and not frequenting the establishment which leaves room for both).

My quandary comes from the following - If you've never viewed such sexual imagery, etc.  how could you know what you're commenting on?  And if you have been exposed and believe that it distorts what people think about women, then are you saying that your own thinking on the subject of women is distorted?  Is your position that we're 'brainwashed' by the imagery?

There have been numerous studies with cultures that have no access to any media, and the men in those groups, upon being shown the silhouettes of different shaped women, consistently choose the hourglass shaped figures. 

Studies have also been done with children under 18months that have had no exposure to television, magazines, etc.  - they're shown the faces of beautiful women, average women and women that were less than blessed.  Can you guess which ones they choose consistently regardless of race or ethnicity?

For those that have children who one day will be on their own and make their own moral decisions, it's not enough to shield them from every aspect of human sexuality and then expect that they be able to make the decisions you might wish without any understanding of what it is they should be avoiding and why.

Wow. Very nicely said.

[nomoser]

Fair enough.  But aren't you, through opposition, essentially supporting a view that everyone does have to believe in your morality?  (As opposed to allowing the store to exist and not frequenting the establishment which leaves room for both).

So are you saying I am not allowed to have and express any opinion if it is not the same as yours? I thought I read in earlier posts of yours that you supported people in their expression of their opinions, including opposition, relating to this store. If I don't want a store with an 18 and older back room in my community, I certainly have the right to say so, and express opposition. The First Amendment applies to Quakers like me as well. You have the same right to stand up for your opinions, even if that does suggest that you think that your opinions are more enlightened than mine.

My quandary comes from the following - If you've never viewed such sexual imagery, etc.  how could you know what you're commenting on?  And if you have been exposed and believe that it distorts what people think about women, then are you saying that your own thinking on the subject of women is distorted?  Is your position that we're 'brainwashed' by the imagery?

Let me just say that pornography has been discussed in a separate topic, and this is supposed to be about the Ms. Teaz store with its 18 and older room. That being said, some of your statements / arguments just beg to be addressed.

I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make here. Would you also argue that, if a person has never tried drugs, he or she shouldn't be able to have a valid opinion on whether they are a good thing? And if they have tried drugs, then clearly their minds are ruined by the effects and they shouldn't be allowed to encourage others to stay away from drugs? It doesn't make any sense. You seem to be saying that nobody is allowed to have an opinion on pornography, whether they have seen it or not.

There have been numerous studies with cultures that have no access to any media, and the men in those groups, upon being shown the silhouettes of different shaped women, consistently choose the hourglass shaped figures. 

Studies have also been done with children under 18months that have had no exposure to television, magazines, etc.  - they're shown the faces of beautiful women, average women and women that were less than blessed.  Can you guess which ones they choose consistently regardless of race or ethnicity?

Trust me on this ... for every study you can find that says that pornography has no negative effect on the viewer, there is another study that says the opposite. Simply citing studies is useless. In addition, the studies you cite don't even go to the point of the discussion. My view is not that highly sexualized images of women cause men to inappropriately desire women to be beautiful. My view is that highly sexualized images of women, and our culture's constant peddling of the same, causes men to view women as objects whose primary purpose it is to gratify men's sexual fantasies. Why do you think there has been so much discussion over the years about the problem with date rape, and how so many male defendants reply with "well, even though she said stop, I knew she really wanted it." Where do we get such ideas? Don't you think that a constant barrage of imagery that portrays women as sexual objects contributes to this kind of mentality? I do.

For those that have children who one day will be on their own and make their own moral decisions, it's not enough to shield them from every aspect of human sexuality and then expect that they be able to make the decisions you might wish without any understanding of what it is they should be avoiding and why.

I do have children ... four of them. They are not sheltered by any means, and I have been very open with them in terms of discussions of sexuality, including the issues we are discussing here. Of course they will reach an age where they will have to make their own decisions on these issues. But if you are suggesting that I, as a parent, should not share with them my values, then you are suggesting that I be an irresponsible parent. What is the role of a parent, then? Give birth and back off? Or is it just that you think that I should not share my values with them because they are not the same as your values ... ?

[forumreader]

nomoser: Thank you, thank you for such a reasonable and morally sound post!

[bordercolliefan]

Nice posts, nomoser.

Some people seem to think that the most responsible way to raise children is to expose them to everything in our culture, no matter how tawdry, immoral, violent, or just plain worthless. Thus, if we don't allow our kids unfettered access to sexualized media and clothing, violent movies and video games, info about the latest designer drugs, etc., we are "sheltering" them.

Well, you will never convince me that flooding our children with all of these images and information will magically result in the most sensitive, value-guided, responsible children. Quite the contrary, I think you end up with precocious (not in a good way), cynical, morally subjective, somewhat nihilistic kids who conclude that there are really no firm values in the world and one might as well pursue one's own pleasures (because it appears that's what everyone else is doing).

I'm not advocating hiding the ball on our children. Obviously, when the time is right, I am going to provide my children with accurate information about sexuality, drugs, etc.

But I am not going to fool myself that sexualized media and shops like Ms. Teaz are somehow good for their education, and that it is wrong of me to "shelter" them. I know what is good for my children better than Hollywood or the free market does.