A Mom Sounds-Off About Youth Fashion And Appearance

(from another posting here on Blogger)

"A few weeks ago we went to Macy's (with a coupon, of course) to find my daughter an Easter dress.  There were a couple of nice traditional Easter dresses, but there were several that looked like they should come with a complimentary pole and hooker heels!  Of course, THESE are the dresses my daughter is attracted to. 'Pleeeease, Mommy.  I love the pink one.  See how it has jewels?'  (Yeah, where her non-existent breasts go.  I guess if I bought her the padded push-up bra from Abercrombie she'd fill the jewels out nicely.)  'Oooh, I love how my back shows in this one, Mommy!'  (Who makes a backless Easter dress for kids?)  After some tears and a lot of 'Because I'm your mother - that's why,' we finally decided she could squeeze into her 5T dress from last year one more time long enough for church and we'd cross this bridge next year.

It's not just Easter dresses.  It's everything!  I spend a fortune on her clothes because the only place I find nice, little girl clothes in her size is Gymboree, Hanna Andersson and Naartje.  And it's not just that the clothes are too sexy.  If they're not too sexy, then they're just too damn mature for these little girls.  What little girl needs a maxi dress??  Where is she going to wear that?  Not to the playground.  Not to school.  Does she get invited to many poolside cocktail parties?  What little girl needs short shorts with a logo emblazoned on her ass? Who buys those?  Why are you interested in drawing attention to your daughter's ass?

Our little girls have such a long road ahead of them already, filled with land mines like anorexia, bulimia, cutting, depression, drugs, sex, and more.  Why are people trying to put them on that road earlier and earlier?

Body image is a BIG deal in this country. Why in the hell would we want to start that crap with our 5, 6, and 7 year olds?  Let's give them a couple more years of liking themselves.

Ugh. I don't know who to punch:  the manufacturers of this shit, the stars like Miley Cyrus who wear this crap, the retailers who stock it, or the consumers who buy it.  I think, ultimately, the blame goes to the consumers.  There may be a couple kids out there with Gold Cards, but most of the buying is done by mom and dad.  If we'd just stop buying this misogynistic whore-wear maybe companies would stop trying to sell it to us and Miley would realize she's irrelevant and she'd go away."

Appearance Matters

I would have thought we had sufficiently discussed this issue of appearance, but apparently some people are just going to insist that anyone should be able to wear anything and not be judged in any way regarding their character.

Dream on.

Now, if your goal in life is to rise no higher than stocking shelves at Walmart or making fries at McDonalds, that knock yourself out.  Wear whatever you like.  Express your inner freak.  But make no mistake about it, when you step out in public, people will form general opinions about you, whether you like it or not, whether you think it's politically correct for them to do so.  As regards judging a book by its cover, it happens every day, everywhere.

Let's begin with the pajama couture.  Unless it's 6-7 in the morning and you discovered you just ran out of milk or bread and have to run to the Quik Trip, take 5-10 minutes to put on some actual clothes.  Pajamas are pajamas; not pants.  Looking like you just slid out of bed says to people that you're just lazy or you can't manage your time.  

Perhaps I date myself by saying that I don't get the whole low-pants-underwear-showing thing.  Chalk it up to fashion, I guess.  Adolescent fashion.  You don't see many men 50-60 doing that or wearing their caps backwards. But if I had a daughter, I guarantee you, if you showed up at my front door with your pants halfway down your ass, you're getting the door in your face.  I don't exactly know what kind of statement any young man dressed like this is making, but it's not one I want anything to do with.

Which brings us - I guess - to butt crack.  Now, most people have a sufficiently developed tactile sense that they know when a mosquito, fly, or gnat lands on them.  I have to assume that most people would know that half their ass is hanging bare for the world to see.  I'm just sayin', I would sure as hell know if my ass was hanging out.  Like the pajama thing, this just says,"slob," only perhaps more so.

A word or two about the whole hipster look.  While certainly cleaner and more respectable than butt crack or pajamas, to me, this just speaks of someone who's a bit superficial.  He's obviously spent a LOT of money to tell the world that he's a non-conformist.  Right or wrong (on my part) I just think a person like this is overly-concerned about being fashionable and might just have little depth of character.  I could be wrong.  Sue me.

And while the Confederate flag is still a timely issue, let's include that in the discussion.  It's not clothing, but still an awfully popular accessory for some guys.  Look, folks.  I'm a guy, and I've been around a LOT of your regular blue-collar type guys.  While the whole Confederate flag thing usually symbolizes,"Hey, I'm a rebel," at least 50% of the time, I've found that these guys are usually real fond of the "N" word.  Just sayin'.

And lastly, female fashion.  Now, I would have to assume that few - if any - women in their 50's or late 40's would be sporting this kind of club wear, but I guarantee you, a LOT of women in their early 20's are buying this kind of stuff. OK, maybe not farm girls, or anyone size 14 and up.  But if you're going out in public - even if only to upscale dance clubs - wearing stuff like this, it says to the world that you know your way around a pole, and I'm just suggesting that it may not attract the kind of men you want.  Does it MEAN you're a slut or a whore?  No, but it suggests it.  And ladies, you can think and say whatever the hell you want, fashion (to men) is like fishing lures.  You use a specific lure to attract a specific fish.  And fashion like this suggests you're an easy mark.

As I've said in the past, it doesn't make me racist if I say that I know which parts of town to stay away from after dark.  I've been around the block.  I know where it's safe and where it's not.  There is such a thing as common sense and if I could teach that in seminars, I could make some good $$.

As one blogger put it,"If you see a dirty guy who is wearing filthy clothes, is unshaven and has holes in his shoes, are you going to ask him the time of day, or are you going to ask the guy in a suit and tie, if they were both on the sidewalk?  If you see a beautiful woman dressed as Cinderella, you smile.  If you see a guy who is decked-out like he was raised from the dead, your eyes widen, you step back and say,'whoa.'  This is human nature whether people want to admit it or not."

So, you just keep telling me that men objectify women, and I'll keep telling you that more often than not, women objectify themselves.

"Privileged" Individuals

Following the Charleston shooting, an article appeared on Psychology Today's website, suggesting that self-centeredness is at the heart of racism, or at least it's a contributing factor.  I would have to agree that there's some truth to that notion, but the article got me thinking about a couple of things I experienced just the day before; instances of people taking rude actions that spring from that I'm special frame of mind.  In other words I can do this because the usual laws and guidelines of a civil society don't apply to me.  Nothing really egregious, just really rude.

I was working on refinishing a canoe at our son's place, and his property borders on an alley; a basically one-vehicle lane topped with crushed limestone.

At the end of the alley and across the street is a huge municipal recreation area with multiple baseball diamonds.  The area does have its own adequate parking area, but instead of using that and walking a few hundred feet to the bleachers, a lot of the soccer moms take up all the available street parking around the area.  See diagram below for next part of the story.

With all the available street parking used up, this soccer mom parked her huge GMC Yukon half in the alley and half on the neighbor's lawn.  I would think that even a teenager taking Driver's Ed. would know that this was not a wise, let alone courteous choice.  But this woman was special.  No, she wasn't disabled or obese with bad ankles.  Just special.  If I had had my cell phone on me, I would have dialed it in to the local police.  Jackass.

The second instance was another soccer mom, apparently in a big hurry, most likely late for something or other, and she comes zooming down the dry, dusty alley about 25-30 mph, kicking up clouds of dust.  Again, jackass.  Obviously, there might have been children in the area, but again, she was special.

Some years back, my wife actually witnessed another soccer mom, WITH a child in the passenger seat, totally blow through a four-way stop intersection with an elementary school on one corner of the intersection.  My wife was so outraged at this that she followed the woman downtown.  Turns out the woman was late for her daughter's dance class.  My wife chewed off a piece of the woman's behind.

Special privileged individuals.  Gotta love 'em...

Wasted Life

Perhaps not all men are created equal.  Well, I guess in the eyes of God we are, if you believe in God.  Or a god.  Some men are born into wealth.  They never know need or want.  And comfort is something that we all get used to, at any level.

Some men are born into poverty and will be lucky if they can rise - economically - to a point where they can at least make rent and eat one square  meal a day.  Some men manage to overcome poverty while others are swallowed whole.

Some are exposed to a number of bad situations; substance abuse, physical and mental abuse, prejudice and worse.

But regardless of one's advantages or bad fortune, at some point in time, you begin making serious and life-changing choices.  While one's parents may be to blame for something, there comes a point where you have to stop blaming your parents for your bad choices.  Legally, that's 18 in most states.

Dylann Roof is 21.  I haven't seen anything as of yet regarding when his hateful racist views may have begun to gel.

I personally know a young person that is making some bad choices in his life; the kind of choices that can hold one back from being any kind of success in life, and I do not mean strictly financial.  Thankfully, he has not committed any crimes against society and begun a serious police record.  There's still hope for him; as a human being, as a contributing member of society, and maybe as a husband and father.  Only time will tell.  And yes, he did have some bad situations earlier in his life that contributed to his current world view and status.  But he also made some bad choices by alienating himself with some of his most significant lifelines.   You try to extend a helping hand, but if it gets rejected, the person is pretty much on their own.

But regarding Dylann Roof, he's wasted.  He may have been scared, we don't know, but he's self-inflicted some new ones.  What he took away from the world can never be replaced.  He has nullified whatever value his life once had.

I shed more tears over putting-down an aged pet cat than I ever would over Dylann's worthless ass.  The cat never asked anything of anyone other than food and water and an occasional loving touch.  Roof is worm food.

God have mercy on whoever contributed to his twisted state of mind.

Mash-up: Racism, Guns, Politics, Mental Illness

As expected, there were editorials on every news-oriented website about the latest shooting in Charleston and I could hardly stand to read any of them.  I didn't need to.  The titles and headlines told the story.  Here's all I've got to say on the situation:

Guns:  Yes, we've got too many of them and they're way to easy to obtain; legally or illegally.  There are too many ammosexuals obsessed with guns.  They can't go out for a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk without an AK.  Maybe if we gave them all a free penile implants…

Racism:  It's alive and well in America; especially down south.  It's just more prevalent and flamboyant down there, but it's everywhere.  And any politician that can't admit that doesn't deserve a vote, doesn't deserve to sit in either the House or Congress, doesn't deserve to be president.  Period.

Politics:  How many ways can you spin the truth?   How many ways can you dance around the dead elephant in the middle of the room?  How many alternative phrases can you find for climate change?  How many excuses can you make for mass murderers?

and finally…

Mental Illness:  I'm sick to my stomach about all the articles suggesting that mental illness was not part of the latest mass shooting.  It was a combination of mental illness AND racism.  As far as I'm concerned, racism IS a form of mental illness, as is the general obsession with guns.  Plus, I think that any politician has to be a bit mentally ill to continually avoid calling something what it is.  You know, anyone of middle-eastern descent is a potential terrorist but any white guy/kid that kills a bunch of people, somehow isn't.

The whole conservative platform reeks of mental illness; the instance upon the sanctity of the fetus while cutting social services.  Their unhealthy relationship with the NRA and people like the Koch brothers.  Greasy little used car salesmen like Scooter Walker.  Theocratic nutcakes like Santorum.  And what the f*k is up with the size of the Clown Car?  Are they just trying to throw everything they have at Hillary, hoping that one of these turds will stick to the wall?  If anyone didn't literally choke at Trump's arrogant egotistical speech, they need serious professional help. 

Lewis Black was spot on; we've reached that point in time where satire and reality intersect.  And it's scary.

A Time and a Place - Part 4 - "There's One In Every Crowd"

90% of you aren't going to be able to relate to this little anecdote, but just accept what I'm telling you on faith.  It's all true and part of my personal experiences.

Thus far, I've been talking about what may constitute inappropriate dress modes and appearances in some people's eyes.  A lot of what is considered appropriate often has to do with circumstance and venue; a simple, common example being an executive wearing a suit and tie at work instead of blue jeans. And if he decides to play 9 holes of golf after work, he might put on some plaid slacks - something he might not otherwise wear if he was going out to dinner.

You get the idea.

OK, at nudist/naturist venues it is obviously considered normal to be naked, or at least mostly naked.  One might wear a hat and sunglasses and some type of footwear, but as evening rolls around and the temperature starts to drop, it's quite common for nudists to put on some clothing.  Usually, in the summer months, it doesn't get that chilly, and people often gather around a campfire for drinks and conversation.  You might see people wearing just a flannel shirt.  But no nudist would consider it odd if you decided to put on some sweat pants and a sweatshirt.  If you get cold, you put clothes on.  No big epiphany.  Otherwise naked is the uniform of the day.

Well, part of the overall nudist philosophy is that nudity is a great equalizer.  ALRIGHT, I heard that comment in the back!!  Cute.  Yeah.  But seriously, our clothes very often give a hint as to both our vocation and - to a degree - our personality.  If I were to pick 10 people out of a crowd on the street, I don't think anyone would have that much trouble determining who was the college student, who was the executive, the mechanic, the cop, the butcher, etc.  But when you're naked, unless you choose to divulge your identity, your pretty much equal to the next naked person.  And if/when you do choose to share personal details with someone, you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that you're surrounded by everyone from lawyers to doctors to car salesmen.  Again, no big epiphany.

But regarding what I said about putting on clothes in the evening, what you WON'T see is people putting on any kind of lingerie, because that is sexually suggestive, and that's not what nudism is about.

Ya still with me, folks?  Ok, I'll continue for those that are.

Nudism is not about being erotic.  So, it started to become a bit of an issue a few years back when resort members or visitors began showing up wearing genital piercings, because it obviously called attention to their sex.  At first, resort boards of directors weren't sure how to handle this and some asked guests and visitors if they would please remove same when at the resort.  By now, it may no longer be an issue, I don't know, but the POINT IS, you would think it would be enough just to be nude; to be able to enjoy nude social recreation with other people, but SOME PEOPLE just feel the overwhelming need to CALL ATTENTION to themselves.  It's really not JUST about "personal expression."  Seriously, when a guy comes strolling in wearing a 10mm Prince Albert piercing, uh…..it rather draws attention to his plumbing.  And it isn't just guys; women are getting genital piercings, too.  Most are fairly subtle in nature, but some people could carry the contents of their key rings on their piercings. Nipple piercings have been around for a while, too, but not the size of something so large, it looks like you could hook a tow chain to it.

And at this point, if you want to argue with me that, oh no, they're not trying to draw attention to themselves, they're just "expressing themselves," just take your shit and get out of here.  Seriously. Just go.

Let me explain it to you this way:  in a crowd of 100 clothed people, a naked person would stand out.  Conversely, in a crowd of 100 naked naked people, a clothed person would stand out.  So, if you're in a venue where everyone is naked, where every last vestige of social status has been removed, and then someone still has the overwhelming need to make themselves stand out in some flamboyant manner, you just have to shake your head and go,"really?  Really?"

There was one other occasion that stands out in my memory; it was a Halloween party.  A nudist Halloween party.  Hey, they're every bit as much fun as any other standard textile party.  Creative costumes, from minimal to elaborate.  And there was this one group of women who usually hung out together.  A nice group of women; mature, witty, fun and yes, attractive.  But in a venue that discourages the wearing of provocative clothing, what do you imagine they chose as Halloween costumes?  A:  they dressed as hookers.  Hookers!  And I'm not talking about some camped-up, silly version with overly done makeup and pink wigs.  No.  I'm talking about dressing up like some expensive professional escort you'd find in Vegas.  Man!  Talk about drawing attention to yourself.  I absolutely could not resist complimenting them on their choice of costume.  As I passed them in the pool area, I said,"Nice shoes, ladies."

So don't try to hand me any of this crap that short shorts and skirts, push-up bras and skin tight leggings are all about "personal expression" and that those of us who find it all a bit much are some kind of voyeurs who are "objectifying" women.

Hey, "express yourself" all you want, just stop being disingenuous about why you're doing it.

When I get up on a stage with my guitar, I could just stand there motionless, like a statue and play.  But instead, I might make a few extra moves and expressions that have absolutely nothing to do with the execution of the music.

Because I'm putting on a show.

And that's exactly what a woman is doing when she parades around in provocative clothing.

A Time and a Place - Part 3 - Family and Friends

Here are the words/opinions of two other wonderful people in my life; our son and a best friend.

Again, brief bios, just so you get a little feel of who's at the podium.

Our son.  Graduated third in his class.  Was solicited by the Navy for their nuclear program. He declined and pursued electricity, instead. Today, he's the Chief Electrician (analog and digital) at a major automotive engine parts manufacturer.  He not only repairs equipment and programs computers and robotics, he fabricates machinery and assemblies on demand. 

As a parent, he has three teenage children to raise; one boy and two girls, plus two preschool twin boys.

In his spare time (which is often slim) he is a class-A off-road enthusiast who builds his own custom Jeeps from the ground, up.

Here's what he has to say about appropriate/inappropriate dress. He writes in a more stream of consciousness style, but you won't have a hard time understanding him.

"The bottom of the decency scale has fallen out. I have a pretty good sense of character and BS detector.  There's some savage element to mankind that drives sexuality, sexual thoughts and urges, and physical/mental attraction.  It goes right down to why cardinals are different colors:  evolution.

Some people have control over sexual thoughts and urges to greater and lesser degrees than average.  Even when they're suppressed by societal pressure, religious tenet, professionalism, or alternate sexual desires, nonetheless in the majority of the population those thoughts are present in one sense or another. And it doesn't matter what the target of that instinct is.  It could be young, old, animal, mineral and in a lot of cases, virtual.  Unfortunately, sometimes those urges morph into horrible kinks, fetishes and obsessions.

But sticking to the topic, we're talking about your garden variety of sexual attraction.  Male to female.  It's basic survival science.  There are signs and triggers that evoke those reactions, and they vary in minor ways.  But the thought or promise of carrying out those desires are observed throughout nature in mating dances or a female cat in heat.  So, when any person (more often female) exhibits anything that personifies a sexual preference, it will trigger a sexual desire.  Nobody but a true narcissist is attracted to himself; so nobody dresses sexy or slutty to look at themselves.

To me, it stands to reason that all promiscuous behavior and provocative dress serves no other purpose than to garner attention.  Whether said attention is to fulfill an inner emptiness or whether they can't help themselves or whether it's just the instinctual mating dance in constant search for a mate, or whether they just really don't know why they do it, the underlying factor is attention, plain and simple.

The real problem is the denial of the truth by those that choose to flaunt that attention-seeking behavior.  And they take affront when someone challenges their motives. Regarding our daughter that just graduated, we have forbade her from certain dress and activity, in order to protect her from provoking a situation that could go beyond her control and in order to maintain a certain respectable image, we've put the brakes on a few times.  Regardless of whether her friends parents lacked that sense.

Sometimes you have to save them from themselves.  I'd rather be known by her as a hard-ass than be known around town as the guy whose daughter was found in a ditch.

I don't even want to hear parents' excuses about boosting self-esteem, or letting them be themselves, or having freedom of expression.  By exposing those kids to disrespect, objectification and risk, they are just as negligent as parents that would encourage their kids to play in the street.

A Best Friend.

Here's the opinion of a mature, talented, successful elementary teacher/administrator. She's a great teacher not just because she knows her job, but because she possesses that special magic of being able to really communicate and connect with children.  Believe me, not all teachers actually have that.  The best teachers - like her - can grab the children's attention and hold it in the palm of their hand.

"The way one dresses is a personal preference.  It is certainly, in most instances, to attract attention or to make a statement or because it is trendy.  It is also sometimes offensive and crude.  Although a personal right, one should consider that others will comment and may have offensive thoughts or comments.  It also reflects on the respect you have for yourself.  Schools are another story.  We all have to follow rules and laws.  The way one dresses in school does distract learning for bother other students and the adults.  Dress codes, even uniforms, have made the school environment more conducive to the business at hand."

A Time and a Place - Part 2

Just got done listening to my wife's opinion(s) on the topic of mode of dress, and what is rightfully considered appropriate and inappropriate, given the venue, situation and of course, age.

A few words about my wife, if it matters (and I think it does) as to the person behind the opinion.  Brief bio, here:  in high school, she was always the quiet one; a pretty girl, just not part of the clique that was getting all the attention. She was an honor math student and she took bookkeeping, knowing that might be a useable, valuable skill after graduation.  

By the time we got married (after college) her resume' already included short-order cook, nurse's aide and occupational therapy aide.  And within a few years after that, she had expanded her skills to include pharmacy tech, professional nanny/home management/private chef and personal assistant. And within the last year, she just added Human Resources to that list.  She has always handled our finances because for her, it's like falling off a log.  She frequently sees angles to things that escape me.  She also has a unique "magnet" that seems to attract animals, children and the infirm.

She raised a son that graduated third in his class.

So yeah, I value her opinion.

I asked her about this whole appropriate vs inappropriate dress thing, for young women and adults and this was the first thing she said:

"Any woman wearing hot pants or hi-rise shorts KNOWS that people/men are looking at her ass.  That's why she put them on; NOT because it was the most comfortable piece of clothing in her wardrobe for a hot day.  And it's not like she's standing out on asphalt, directing traffic.  She's off to a party, a dance, or the beach.  She wants attention and knows how to get it."

As an HR person, she gave me details about what an employer can (and cannot) legally do regarding mode of dress (tats, piercings) but also admitted that only a stupid employer would discriminate against a person on the basis of tats or piercings and SAY so.  They can cite other reasons.  But that yes, employers can and do often prefer a person that isn't displaying flamboyant body art or hardware, if the position in question involves something like frequent face-to-face personal interaction that REPRESENTS the business.

She admitted that young women who choose to dress flamboyantly and/or provocatively usually want SOME kind of attention. They don't have to necessarily have a negative self-image.  It might just be peer pressure; they don't want to be laughed at or ridiculed by the other more popular  girls because they're not wearing the latest fashion or the latest fashion label on their jeans or shorts.

So, there you have it - from a woman's point of view.  A fairly intelligent, level-headed, successful woman.

You are of course entitled to your own fantasies.

A Time and a Place

There's a debate going on these days that deals with appearance; everything from clothing to jewelry, and one side of this argument seemingly contends that just about anything goes and that people should not be subject to things like dress codes and that we (both genders, but aimed more at men) should not engage in slut shaming.  I could be wrong, but it seems to me that some people are suggesting that the whole concept of provocative appearance exists only in the eyes of the beholder.  In terms of male-female social interaction, I get the distinct impression they are suggesting that a woman should be free to wear whatever she likes and that if a man dares to suggest that a particular mode of dress is particularly alluring, seductive or erotic, that this notion is totally in the head of the man in question; essentially reducing him and his reaction to some kind of drooling, staring Chester Molester.

I've got a one-word response to that:  bullshit.

Let's begin with young ladies.  Students.  Now, if you're in school - specifically middle or high school - this is of course a time when everybody is supposed to be studying, getting the best grades they can, preparing themselves for adulthood.  And of course, it's the time when hormones (male and female) are running wild.  But that's not the central theme of this blog.  Students need to be concentrating on their academics, on whatever it is the instructor is talking about at the moment - not who is the latest fab music celebrity or what is the latest fashion trend.  There's a time and place for that, and school isn't it.

So schools (most of them from what I can determine) enact dress codes.  In some school districts a big part of that concerns the wearing of gang colors and symbols.  Totally understandable.  And then there's the goth couture; the wearing of spikes, chains, leather, piercings, mohawks, etc.  I don't think anyone would really debate what this particular fashion entails.  Most of the parents I know wouldn't have any issues with banning this kind of dress from a school environment.

But - forgive the expression - some people really start getting their panties in a knot when you start talking about what constitutes provocative clothing for young girls.  May it please the court, I offer you exhibits A, B, and C.  The first two pairs of fabric are hi-rise shorts from a major young people's source of fashion, Abercrombie & Fitch.  They can be found in most major malls.  And exhibit C is from a popular Seventeen, the largest monthly teen magazine.

I could pretty much guarantee you that 90% of the middle and high schools in the country would send home any young girl who wore this stuff to class.

Whether or not you consider any of these items provocative is your own preference.  I'm just telling you they wouldn't fly in most schools.

And if you do think they're appropriate, then YOU'RE part of the problem.

Does the fashion world (meaning everything from Seventeen magazine to Versace) promote anorexic women, revealing clothing and fashion that is designed to draw attention to women's bodies?  Absolutely. 

But here's the rub (no pun intended).  If you're under 18, you're not an adult.  You do what adults tell you to do.  Especially in school, much less at home.

And if you're a parent that's comfortable with letting your daughter out of the house in leggings that might as well be painted-on, well then, you can't really complain if down the road she decides to get a part-time job dancing on a pole.

You can contend till you're blue in the face that every person should be free to express themselves (specifically in mode of dress) but people do not dress just to express themselves; they dress to attract attention.  If you disagree with that, don't bother reading any further.  I have nothing more to say to you.

Now, about piercings and tattoos.  For decades the only body part that people got pierced was their earlobe.  I'm not talking about native tribes; just your average industrialized society.  And for the most part it was women.  And somewhere along the line - I'll say the 60's - ear piercing became more popular with men.  Not all men.  You first began to see it in the west coast cultures.  San Francisco. Woodstock.  That sort of thing.

Tattoos were for the most part something you saw on merchant mariners and young men who did military service; especially those who served anywhere in the Pacific rim area.  And then it was bikers, a culture that really took off after WWll.  These days, just about everyone has at least a small tat, somewhere on their body.

But the issue of piercings and tats - at least as far as the business world is concerned - is not so much the extent of the work, but where it's located.  In other words, as long as your face doesn't look like you fell down the stairs with a tackle box or like you're on display in a carnival tent, most employers don't have a problem.  If you're just working in say, a machine shop environment, as long as you keep long hair tied up and you're not wearing hardware that can become entangled in a machine - as long as you're not a safety risk - you're cool.  It's when you're dealing with the public - the customer - that it becomes an issue.  An employer is usually totally within their legal rights to specify what they think is an appropriate mode of appearance for (at least some) employees.  How about this young lady:

Do I find her appearance attractive?  Not particularly.  Do I find it offensive or off-putting?  No.  But that's just me.  If this is how you want to look, I guess it's your choice.  As long as you're over 18.  If you're an adult, you can express your inner freak any way you like.  But many employers might have a problem if you were applying for the job of front desk receptionist or salesperson.

And then there's the ever-so-popular butt crack.  Do we really have a debate on this one?  What's the deal with this girl?  Does she NOT know the degree of her display?  If she does, what's the point?  Does that make her a whore?  Of course not.  It makes her look rather stupid.  It says something about how she chooses to present herself to the world.  Now, you can debate what that something is all you want, but I'm saying that she IS making a statement. 

Here's another garden variety example.  Not really what I'd call blatant exposure, but…is this particularly attractive or appropriate for being out in public?  I dunno.  Maybe.  If you on the boardwalk at Venice Beach or on the strip in Vegas.  AND you have the cheeks to pull it off.  She doesn't.  Is that chauvinistic?  Is that objectification?  Sorry.

Then there's this babe.  Again, extreme?  I dunno.  Apparently not in this day and age.  Is she a stripper?  I dunno.  Could be.  Might be.  Is she making some kind of statement?  You bet your ass she is.  Is that an invitation to be rude or crude to her?  Absolutely not.  But she's making a fashion statement as much as if she were wearing a Halloween costume.

Here's a classic male version of butt crack.  Makes me want to slap a trowel of spackle on it.  Dufus.  Dude probably drinks Bud Lite.  Just sayin'.

That's all I got time for, today.  I got shit to do.  And it doesn't involve mooning people at Walmart or anywhere else in public.

I'm thinking about talking to three women in my life - my mother, my wife and one of my best friends.  All of them extremely successful as parents and professionals in the business world.  All of them open-minded but also painfully logical.  If any one of them gave me the stink-eye at something I did or wore, I would definitely think twice about it.  I'll get back to ya about what they have to say on these issues.

Shame - One Side of the Coin

In Jeb's defense (and that's sarcasm), the book in which he touts slut shaming was written 20 years ago, but this man who would be king has said little to nothing to disassociate himself from those sentiments.

Washington Post writer, Catherine Rampell says,"If only we as a populace were a bit more judgmental, the poor would stop being so poor, the promiscuous would learn restraint, deadbeats would pay their bills, criminals would keep to the straight and narrow, school shooters would lay down their arms…"

"Yes, and I have an amulet that keeps away tigers."

Bush would have you believe that the main reason people are broke, unmarried , in prison or unemployed is because it's all just too much gosh-darn fun.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that a healthy sense of shame is not a bad thing per se.  There's someone in my own family that would definitely benefit from a sense of shame, but why is it that men like Jeb Bush seem to think that only wrong-doers at the bottom of the economic pile will benefit from this?

Sorry, Jeb, but this is pretty simplistic thinking, not to mention pretty one-sided. Unless you've got the integrity and balls to stand up and admit that your older brother should be shamed for lying to get us into the Iraq War…that our government should be ashamed of its opposition to universal healthcare in light of the relative success of Canada's system…that we should be ashamed of our naive beliefs about sex education in light of the success of the Netherland's educational programs…that Fox News should be ashamed for all of its lying…unless and until you can admit to that, you do not deserve to be leader of the free world.

And instead of a scarlet letter "A," you can just have a large "L" embroidered on your suits for "Loser."

Blackhawk to Wyalusing State Park

It is roughly 83 miles from the Blackhawk landing to the Mississippi River, and another 3.5 miles to the Wyalusing landing.

Actually, the exact distance from Blackhawk to the Mississippi might be closer to 90 miles, only because of all the criss-crossing you have to do on the Wisconsin, paddling around islands, sandbars, and trying to stay in water deep enough to float your boat.

And, while it is possible to access the Wyalusing landing by going through a dense backwater slough area, if any of the guide signs were down, it's extremely easy to get lost and confused in these sloughs.  We just prefer the clearer route of going down the Mississippi and backtracking up along the railroad tracks to the landing.

Now, all that said, this is not a trip I would recommend to anyone that does not consider themselves a strong paddler.  We're not necessarily talking speed as much as endurance.  We've done this trip twice already, and on our next one (hopefully this summer) we're planning on 4 days and 5 nights.  That means paddling about 21 miles a day, which is really not that bad; it's about 5 hours of paddling a day.  We prefer to use fingerless bicycling gloves to pad our hands.

But here's the catch (there's always a catch, you know that):  the Wisconsin River runs basically east-west, and even on a good day, a slight westerly breeze starts to pick up mid-morning.  Even though the river flows at a steady 3 mph and even mild paddling will get you moving at 4-5 mph, you're usually bucking a breeze, and hopefully it's just a breeze.  Bucking anything like a 10 mph wind is not fun.

So, what that means is, ideally one should break camp by 7-8 AM and get going.  You don't have to pound it, but it's best if don't dally, because you're going to take at least a couple breaks along the way and you still want to pick out a good camp site before dusk.  That way, you've got plenty of time to relax and play at the end of the day, scrounge firewood, wind down, and rest.  Also, as you approach the end of the Wisconsin River, the water level comes up a bit due to meeting with the Mississippi, and there are considerably less camping spots.  Plenty of islands, yes, but they have no open sand areas and plenty of bugs and poison ivy.

And, on any kind of group trip, it's usually best if you keep the group together, just in case there are any kind of problems….and trust me, on an 80-90 mile journey, you can count on SOMETHING not going according to plan.

The good news is, we know where all the usual good camping spots are, plus all the supply stops, if anyone needs anything.

This is a great trip.  The scenery is beautiful and there's very little development along the river.  But again, I would not recommend it as a first time trip.

Right-Wing Religious Hypocrisy

The rhetoric of religious freedom and the war on Christianity has nothing to do with religion or faith.  While painted to look like an argument for freedom of conscience, it is a poor attempt to assert control.  

In their constant mention of the Bible, right-wing talking heads conveniently ignore the fact that Jesus ate with prostitutes, lepers and sinners.  He said those who suffer and are downtrodden would be welcomed into the kingdom of God.  He said to obey the Ten Commandments, but that the complicated Mosaic laws were not relevant to worshiping God.  And despite what little the Bible has to say about homosexuality, none of it came from Jesus.

People like Santorum and Huckabee want to cherry-pick Old Testament scriptures while ignoring prohibitions like eating shellfish and getting tattoos.

Arguing that you're loving a gay person by praying for them is passive-aggressive and condescending.

And as regards the Duggars, no one is infringing on their right to worship or free speech.  Politicians use the Duggar's fame for expanding their platform, instead of drawing attention to our broken foster care and adoption systems, or the suffering of starving children here and abroad.  You know…things Jesus might actually have cared about.

Men like Santorum and Huckabee exploit the ignorance of their audience - people who may not even know any gay people and whose opinions may be shaped by plutocrats like Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter.  They encourage their followers to vote for empty suits who cut taxes on rich people and corporations, but cut nutrition programs for poor children and identify themselves as people of faith.

They like to admonish liberals for not protecting the sanctity of life, but they're pretty indifferent to the struggles of real people living real lives here and now.  They're not particularly concerned with poverty or inequality or torture or war crimes or a hundred other ethical issues.

We know that banning abortions doesn't decrease the number of abortions.  Sex education, contraception and access to proper health care - these are the things that reduce abortions, and the very thing they oppose at every turn.

Countries like the Netherlands are literally kicking our ass when it comes to reducing teenage pregnancy, but let's just continue to turn a blind eye to all that, and keep promoting stuff like abstinence programs.  Interesting, isn't it, that people who are all about the bottom line don't like to talk about numbers like these?

No, guys like Santorum and Huckabee aren't about religion;  they're carnival barkers for their own personal form of theocracy.

As George Carlin said, they're all about protecting life until it's out of the womb; then you're on your own, kid.  No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no SNAP, no welfare, nothing.