Am I the only one who is tired

[mom31257]

of mostly naked women on the cover of magazines such as Sports Illustrated? I am not much of a shopper, and today I wished so much that I had not taken ds with me to the cash register. I could have left him with dh and dd, but I was buying him a toy and he was excited about it. I couldn't believe how little the bikini covered the girl on the cover.

I understand about freedom of speech and all that, but why don't stores that are obviously for all ages consider that when they place materials that are questionable?

Am I alone with in this? Has our society become this way because too many of us don't say something and really demand more modesty in public?

I know that we are going to have to train our ds to deal with visual images. I just wish that there wasn't going to be so much for him to have to deal with. I know most men are very visual thus the reason for many men dealing with addictions to pornography.

How do others feel?

[LucyStoner]

This particular SI cover is really over the top. And I am the exact opposite of conservative and not into legislating modesty. Seriously, the fact that the binini bottom was so teensy small/low in front makes me seriously think they had to airbrush out her "girl parts". :glare: So in a strange way it was bizarrely asexual for something so skimpy and immodest. And the girl is barely of age. 1 year or so in the other direction and it would be considered child porn. :001_huh:

 

I totally agree that it is ridiculous that something like that sells. It gives girls and boys a strange sense of what beauty and sexiness are. I mean how sexy should a girl with airbrushed sex organs be considered? She looks anatomically similar to a Barbie doll below the waist. Still I think the core issue is that there is a market for it, not that it is published.

[melissel]

This particular SI cover is really over the top. And I am the exact opposite of conservative and not into legislating modesty. Seriously, the fact that the binini bottom was so teensy small/low in front makes me seriously think they had to airbrush out her "girl parts". :glare: So in a strange way it was bizarrely asexual for something so skimpy and immodest. And the girl is barely of age. 1 year or so in the other direction and it would be considered child porn. :001_huh:

 

I totally agree that it is ridiculous that something like that sells. It gives girls and boys a strange sense of what beauty and sexiness are. I mean how sexy should a girl with airbrushed sex organs be considered? She looks anatomically similar to a Barbie doll below the waist. Still I think the core issue is that there is a market for it, not that it is published.

 

I agree. I thought the minute bottom + airbrushing = freaky!

[mom31257]

My question to them is why have it at the register at a kid's eye level. They have a whole section for magazines, so I think, due to the nature of the cover, it should have been there. The top bothered me, too. Basically her nipples were covered and that's all.

 

It's such a shame to me that we've come so far on women's rights, yet, we are portrayed more and more as sex symbols. Why can't women realize that men just use them for their looks and respect them less when they are portrayed this way? Women's desire for affirmation of their bodies as well as desire for fame and fortune just fuel it on, too.

[Mom-ninja.]

The issue I have with it is the photoshop that occurs with just about all magazine pics. If you're going to show skin then make sure it's realistic. I do also think that leaving certain things to the imagination is better.

[fairfarmhand]

I am not only tired. I am livid about it.

 

I want to teach my sons that women are not s*x objects, they are real people and he should guard his eyes for his wife. This does not help.

 

I am not above taking magazines to the service desk and asking that they be displayed in a less child accessible place.

Edited February 22, 2012 by fairfarmhand
correcting a word error

[Negin]

The issue I have with it is the photoshop that occurs with just about all magazine pics. If you're going to show skin then make sure it's realistic. I do also think that leaving certain things to the imagination is better.

:iagree:

[*********]

No, you are NOT the only one who is tired of it.

 

It's a crying shame what is shown on the cover of magazines that are stocked at children's eye level at the grocery store checkout lane.

 

I have complained before when either the text or pictures are ridiculously over the top. I mean, there's nothing wrong with asking the manager just why they decided to stock a particular magazine where every single child can see or read it. It's absurd. Both my boys can read; I don't need them baraged with things like 'The Top Ten S3x Moves That Will Drive Him Crazy', and the like. Good grief. Put them in the magazine aisle, not at the checkout where every last person has to see them just to buy something. And the pictures; oh my goodness, the pictures are p*rnographic. I googled the SI one the OP talked about. How is that not p*rn?!

 

Sorry. Rant over. :tongue_smilie:

[mom31257]

I am not only tired. I am livid about it.

 

I want to teach my sons that women are not s*x objects, they are real people and he should guard his eyes for his sons. This does not help.

 

I am not above taking magazines to the service desk and asking that they be displayed in a less child accessible place.

 

I guess livid is more what I am, too. I called the store this morning and talked with the manager. I'm so glad I did because they have a district manager coming in today. The manager has a 14 yo son and understands how I feel. She said placement is decided by corporate, but if corporate realizes there are customers who are concerned, maybe they will be as well.

 

I don't think most people want to appear intolerant or anti-freedom of speech, so their feelings go unsaid. I just don't see why the most liberal and free-thinking get to decide what is okay in our society. Shouldn't there be a balance?

[Dustybug]

No, you are NOT the only one who is tired of it.

 

It's a crying shame what is shown on the cover of magazines that are stocked at children's eye level at the grocery store checkout lane.

 

I have complained before when either the text or pictures are ridiculously over the top. I mean, there's nothing wrong with asking the manager just why they decided to stock a particular magazine where every single child can see or read it. It's absurd. Both my boys can read; I don't need them baraged with things like 'The Top Ten S3x Moves That Will Drive Him Crazy', and the like. Good grief. Put them in the magazine aisle, not at the checkout where every last person has to see them just to buy something. And the pictures; oh my goodness, the pictures are p*rnographic. I googled the SI one the OP talked about. How is that not p*rn?!

 

Sorry. Rant over. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

:iagree::iagree:It disgusts me what they put out for all to see. My six year old can read well, and I hate that she can see what all those dirty magazines say. SHE does NOT need to know the top 6 ways to achieve the big O, etc. It's a shame.

[Element]

I'm the odd one out here. I could care less about naked people on magazines. My problem is with the writing on the covers! I'm not a prude, by any means, but I just don't think phrases like "0r@l S#x" should be at eye level with emerging readers at the grocery store, KWIM?

Cosmo cover Google image search.

 

ETA: Didn't they used to cover the SI Swimsuit Edition? Or did only certain stores do that?

Edited February 23, 2012 by Element

[curlylocks]

I am not only tired. I am livid about it.

 

I want to teach my sons that women are not s*x objects, they are real people and he should guard his eyes for his wife. This does not help.

 

I am not above taking magazines to the service desk and asking that they be displayed in a less child accessible place.

 

:iagree:

 

I guess livid is more what I am, too. I called the store this morning and talked with the manager. I'm so glad I did because they have a district manager coming in today. The manager has a 14 yo son and understands how I feel. She said placement is decided by corporate, but if corporate realizes there are customers who are concerned, maybe they will be as well.

 

I don't think most people want to appear intolerant or anti-freedom of speech, so their feelings go unsaid. I just don't see why the most liberal and free-thinking get to decide what is okay in our society. Shouldn't there be a balance?

 

Good for you for calling...

 

In this day of political-correctedness, it is very difficult to speak up without being labeled "intolerant".

[mommymilkies]

This particular SI cover is really over the top. And I am the exact opposite of conservative and not into legislating modesty. Seriously, the fact that the binini bottom was so teensy small/low in front makes me seriously think they had to airbrush out her "girl parts". :glare: So in a strange way it was bizarrely asexual for something so skimpy and immodest. And the girl is barely of age. 1 year or so in the other direction and it would be considered child porn. :001_huh:

 

I totally agree that it is ridiculous that something like that sells. It gives girls and boys a strange sense of what beauty and sexiness are. I mean how sexy should a girl with airbrushed sex organs be considered? She looks anatomically similar to a Barbie doll below the waist. Still I think the core issue is that there is a market for it, not that it is published.

 

:iagree: It annoys me to death. Especially that pictures of breastfeeding are very no-no, but selling women on magazines for appeal is. :glare:

[dangermom]

One nice thing about my grocery store is that they'll put shields on the magazine covers when requested. I do it pretty often.

[butterflymommy]

It bothers me, but where I live there are billboards and ads on the sides of public buses that are very, very racy. Some of the worst are ads for dermatologists and cosmetic surgeons-- on those the women ARE naked but they're shown in profile or in a pose that makes it non-X-rated. I think my kids are just kind of numb to it and barely notice.

[mothergooseof4]

I guess livid is more what I am, too. I called the store this morning and talked with the manager. I'm so glad I did because they have a district manager coming in today. The manager has a 14 yo son and understands how I feel. She said placement is decided by corporate, but if corporate realizes there are customers who are concerned, maybe they will be as well.

I don't think most people want to appear intolerant or anti-freedom of speech, so their feelings go unsaid. I just don't see why the most liberal and free-thinking get to decide what is okay in our society. Shouldn't there be a balance?

 

Amen to the bolded! I am tired of the fact that those with more liberal attitudes get to decide what kind of world we have to raise our children in just because the conservatives are afraid to speak up in fear of being seen as intolerant. I am guilty because I am a very nonconfrontational person. I think I am going to start voicing my opinion more often.

[mom31257]

I'm glad I'm not totally alone in this! I just think if enough of us said that we don't want it, businesses would have to take notice and do something about it.

 

I've had the same concerns over the language. One day as we were leaving the store, my dd said, "Did you know that over half of those magazines had something about sex on the cover?". We had a good discussion about it. I've watched her move to stand in front of magazines she didn't want her brother to see. I've been very grateful about how she tries to guard his eyes.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I guess livid is more what I am, too. I called the store this morning and talked with the manager. I'm so glad I did because they have a district manager coming in today. The manager has a 14 yo son and understands how I feel. She said placement is decided by corporate, but if corporate realizes there are customers who are concerned, maybe they will be as well.

 

I don't think most people want to appear intolerant or anti-freedom of speech, so their feelings go unsaid. I just don't see why the most liberal and free-thinking get to decide what is okay in our society. Shouldn't there be a balance?

 

It depends on where you live. Here in the bible belt men are deciding how women can/should live.

 

I'm not appalled by the pic. I grew up in a home where THEY were appalled by stuff like this, but not at how they treated people. They never saw their own hypocrisy in treating poor people/minorities like dirt while yelling about swimsuit issues. (I'm not talking about you or the OP. I am literally talking about the family in which I was reared.)

[Happy2BaMom]

I just don't see why the most liberal and free-thinking get to decide what is okay in our society

 

But this is the problem with dragging labels into an issue that isn't about labels. I am pretty liberal and free-thinking (heavily against censorship of books, for example), but I think the SI cover is as close to porn as it could possibly be without actually being porn and that it ought to be covered. I mean, my first thought when I saw it was "why bother?" I mean, really? She obviously either is into Brazilians (and don't even get me started on how creepy THAT is) or they photo-shopped it. Why do grown women need to look like little girls in that particular area?

 

The bottom line is that covers like this sell and each year needs to be 'more' to ensure more sell. It makes money for some big corporation and our society genuflects to corporations (they now have been granted "personhood" by none other than the U.S. Supreme Court) and their right to make money. It is the rise and rule of the consumer society, so what (some) people want, (some) people get.

 

And I bet those magazines sell just as many copies in the most conservative areas of the country as those more liberal.

[Jen in PA]

I don't know why, but I don't even notice those things.

 

Same here. My mind must be elsewhere when I'm at the checkout.

[jasar31629]

Dh is very successful with both small and large businesses getting screens put in front of those sorts of magazines at the checkout or else moving them to the back of the store in the magazine section.

 

Take that magazine, roll it up and go nicely to the customer service desk. Tell them you were shopping with your little girl or boy and suddenly BAM. Roll that baby open and even the bored teen manning the counter will be a little shocked at such a rude variance in topic. They'll glance at your girl or boy and it'll click. Usually 1 of 2 things will happen- they'll say they'll see what they can do and you can nicely ask to speak to a manager (of a smaller store) and/or send an email. Otherwise with places like Target you'll lodge both a written complaint and call. It has seriously worked each time he's taken it upon himself to go the extra mile and let the stores know he cares...he cares that when he takes his young dd out that she's not subjected to those sorts of degrading mags in the checkout right at her level. There's no avoiding the checkout, people!

 

I love that dh does this...I'm not a very social person and really dislike confrontation. He does it with ease and grace and can stay really nice and positive while lodging his complaints. I get huffy. :tongue_smilie:

[mom31257]

But this is the problem with dragging labels into an issue that isn't about labels. I am pretty liberal and free-thinking (heavily against censorship of books, for example), but I think the SI cover is as close to porn as it could possibly be without actually being porn and that it ought to be covered. I mean, my first thought when I saw it was "why bother?" I mean, really? She obviously either is into Brazilians (and don't even get me started on how creepy THAT is) or they photo-shopped it. Why do grown women need to look like little girls in that particular area?

 

The bottom line is that covers like this sell and each year needs to be 'more' to ensure more sell. It makes money for some big corporation and our society genuflects to corporations (they now have been granted "personhood" by none other than the U.S. Supreme Court) and their right to make money. It is the rise and rule of the consumer society, so what (some) people want, (some) people get.

 

And I bet those magazines sell just as many copies in the most conservative areas of the country as those more liberal.

 

I know these are going to sell, and honestly, if people want to buy it, that's their business. That's not truly my complaint. My issue is with putting at eye level of children and at the register where I'm forced to see it. If you are going to sell basically porn, put it in a section of the store that I can choose to steer clear of. Does that make sense?

Edited February 22, 2012 by mom31257

[nmoira]

Anyone have a link? I see a pic of a basketball player on the SI website...

 

ETA: Never mind... I saw the link to the swimsuit edition. I'm guessing that's what the fuss is about.

Edited February 23, 2012 by nmoira

[fairfarmhand]

I know these are going to sell, and honestly, if people want to buy it, that's there business. That's not truly my complaint. My issue is with putting at eye level of children and at the register where I'm forced to see it. If you are going to sell basically porn, put it in a section of the store that I can choose to steer clear of. Does that make sense?

:iagree: I don't want necessarily them pulled from stores (although if a retailer wanted to make a statement by doing so, I would go the extra mile to patronize that company) but I don't want them where small children can get an eyeful of s*x while deciding what flavor sucker to buy with their allowance!

[Happy2BaMom]

If you are going to sell basically porn, put it in a section of the store that I can choose to steer clear of. Does that make sense?

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Guest]

of mostly naked women on the cover of magazines such as Sports Illustrated? I am not much of a shopper, and today I wished so much that I had not taken ds with me to the cash register. I could have left him with dh and dd, but I was buying him a toy and he was excited about it. I couldn't believe how little the bikini covered the girl on the cover.

 

I understand about freedom of speech and all that, but why don't stores that are obviously for all ages consider that when they place materials that are questionable?

 

Am I alone with in this? Has our society become this way because too many of us don't say something and really demand more modesty in public?

 

I know that we are going to have to train our ds to deal with visual images. I just wish that there wasn't going to be so much for him to have to deal with. I know most men are very visual thus the reason for many men dealing with addictions to pornography.

 

How do others feel?

 

 

I have spoken out against the placement of certain magazines at grocery checkout lines. I don't care one way or another that those magazines exist, but having them at a 4-year-old's eye level doesn't even make sense to me from a marketing perspective, let alone a moral perspective. I have been able to inspire them to re-arrange the placement of a given magazine a time or two.

[stripe]

Why do grown women need to look like little girls in that particular area?

 

I couldn't care less how other people's private parts look. Wax away, or grow it out and style it, I honestly don't care, I don't need to force other people to be hairy, but I just don't understand how all the covers have the same pose! Seriously, they all have teeny tiny bikini bottoms that the model is pulling down! The same pose, year after year. With basically the same words across the top : "barely bikinis!"

[nmoira]

If there is any reason I wouldn't want my kids seeing those images it is that I don't want them to get the idea that it represents reality.

 

Otherwise, whatever. It's a body. It is barely on my radar as I said before.

I just came across this: Startling Photoshop Makeovers of Classic Nudes in Art

 

(artistic nudity, obviously :tongue_smilie: )

[In the Rain]

The covers bother me. The pictures are bad enough, but the words are worse. I'd actually rather my young dds see photos of nearly naked women than read the headlines that mention all kind of things I don't want to explain while standing in the grocery store. "What is a big O?" "Why do men want to have more fun in bed?"

 

I've never been bold enough to ask a store to move the magazines. I feel like it would cause my girls to ask even more questions. KWIM?

[bookfiend]

I'm the odd one out here. I could care less about naked people on magazines. My problem is with the writing on the covers! Ugh. Cosmo is the WORST! There is always something about several spicy varieties of teA, iykwim. I'm not a prude, by any means, but I just don't think the phrase "0r@l S#x" should be at eye level with emerging readers at the grocery store.

Cosmo cover Google image search.

 

QUOTE]

 

Wow! Every, single one of those covers has the word S*X in big, bold font, every one.

 

 

I know these are going to sell, and honestly, if people want to buy it, that's their business. That's not truly my complaint. My issue is with putting at eye level of children and at the register where I'm forced to see it. If you are going to sell basically porn, put it in a section of the store that I can choose to steer clear of. Does that make sense?

 

So I've taken two different approaches. When the boys were younger, I would pause the cart before the aisle, enter the aisle, and turn the magazine around so that the back cover faced forwards. Later we began training them to guard their eyes. This isn't ideal because the image has to register before they can judge it is a "don't look situation." However, this will hit them as men, so we try to train when boys (before hormones) and add in lots of discussion.

Edited February 23, 2012 by bookfiend

[EllaMinnowPea]

This particular SI cover is really over the top. And I am the exact opposite of conservative and not into legislating modesty. Seriously, the fact that the binini bottom was so teensy small/low in front makes me seriously think they had to airbrush out her "girl parts". :glare: So in a strange way it was bizarrely asexual for something so skimpy and immodest. And the girl is barely of age. 1 year or so in the other direction and it would be considered child porn. :001_huh:

 

I totally agree that it is ridiculous that something like that sells. It gives girls and boys a strange sense of what beauty and sexiness are. I mean how sexy should a girl with airbrushed sex organs be considered? She looks anatomically similar to a Barbie doll below the waist. Still I think the core issue is that there is a market for it, not that it is published.

 

I couldn't have said it better myself. I totally agree, especially that the market is the core issue. Sad.

[stripe]

Heh...interesting. I mean even the originals are somewhat doctored. You don't see a wrinkle, pore, curd, or hair on the bodies. The originals are definitely more realistic (and not at all unpleasant to look at).

 

Yeah, these are mostly not quite the corpulent fleshy forms here, and where's Sr Wendy with her comments about "lovely and fluffy" hair?

[Momof3littles]

I think this year's SI cover is over the top. I am quite liberal, but thought this cover was maybe a bit much.

 

My bigger issue is why this particular cover is out and about, discussed freely, etc. but Facebook has an issue with nursing moms, kwim?

 

It ruffles my feathers that many people don't flip out over covers like this but think nursing moms should be forced to cover or nurse only in private.

[LibraryLover]

My kids have been to more art museums than they perhaps want to recall. There are nudes! nudes! nudes! all of the time, in any medium you can imagine. All the museums are missing are the ancient brothels. Ever been to exhibts on ancient Indian, Greek or Roman art? Intercourse on pottery, even. And not just male with female, or just two people engaging together. I once had to sign a permission note/warning/waiver for one of my kids for a field trip. Something along the lines of 'they may ecounter nude art forms" or some such nonsense. Yeah, sure. Go to MOMA and close your eyes the whole time.

 

I tell my kids that people really, really, really like sex and sexual images, and that has always been so, and is never going to change. I told them I hope they are always respectful, kind, and thoughtful when they decide to become sexually active.

 

The magaizines are in the stores because that is where people go to shop. A 13 yr old boy doesn't need SI; all he needs is his own imagination and someone (wearing clothing, even) in front of him whom he finds attractive. I feel the worst for the Catholic School kids because of those little skirts. My own poor dh was thrown into a tizzy with the gals on Lawrence Welk. I kid you not. Could there have been a more wholesome show? Sissy, I think that was the one who made him crazy. And my own father said he prayed over his illicit attraction to Mousketeer Annette.

 

Maybe we can bring back brothels (kidding), & go there to buy the SI Swimsuit issue. ;) When I see provocative mag covers, I do talk about them with my kids if they notice. I've said, "I think that should be more private" or "Isn't it silly they airbrushed her body like that. Photoshop is a photographer's lie. Sometimes people are just dumb." Or, "remember when we saw those nudes about bible stories at the museum? People like to paint and sculpt their socieital view of beauty. This is ours, aren't we lucky. ;) Maybe it would be better in marble, but that's expensive." I think keeping an easy, even silly ongoing conversation is important. I don't think seeing mag covers or looking at paintings of full-figured gals from Ren art is going to turn a kid into a perv. I do think porn on the internet can be addictive, but that doesn't start with a naked trio sculpted into a fountain in a piaza, or even with a SI cover in ValueMart.

 

My own kids saw this at a Pompeii exhibit:

http://dearkitty.blogsome.com/2006/10/26/pompeii-ancient-roman-brothel-restored/

 

And here is a (very) brief slide show of some nude art in the European Middle Ages. The women don't have hair or bottom 'parts'. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/numr/hd_numr.htm#slideshow10

Edited February 23, 2012 by LibraryLover

[Negin]

But this is the problem with dragging labels into an issue that isn't about labels. I am pretty liberal and free-thinking (heavily against censorship of books, for example), but I think the SI cover is as close to porn as it could possibly be without actually being porn and that it ought to be covered.

The bottom line is that covers like this sell and each year needs to be 'more' to ensure more sell.

And I bet those magazines sell just as many copies in the most conservative areas of the country as those more liberal.

:iagree:

The labeling really bothers me also. I'm also quite liberal when it comes to most things, but don't particularly appreciate SI covers, etc. Not so much the nudity, but the false impression that that's how they really look - the photo shopped, air-brushed look, etc. But this is nothing new. This has been going on since the beginning of time with art, etc. Models have always been made to look better than they really are.

 

It is very interesting how the red states are the biggest users of p*rn. So no, it is most certainly not a liberal thing. It's a business thing and it's what sells. Also reminds me about something I read a while back. There was a conference of pastors, where they were staying in a hotel. One of the pastors (a homeschooler on another forum which some here frequent) started chatting with the bartender or hotel manager or whatever one evening. The pastor mentioned how business at the bar must get very slow when the pastors are at the hotel. The reply, "Oh, they're the biggest consumers of cable p*rn" once they go back to their rooms. So no, this most certainly is not a liberal/conservative thing.

 

"According to a new study by Harvard University, the states with the highest concentrations of politically conservative and traditionally religious people are also the top 10 porn-buying states in the nation. For example Utah, where most people embraced old-fashioned values about family and marriage also boasts the highest porn-buying rate in the nation.

 

Another scary statistic recently revealed by xxxchurch.com, a ministry that helps men fight porn addiction, is that hotel porn rentals increase during ministry conventions. This means that some pastors are viewing hotel porn at a higher rate than the general public."

 

My kids have been to more art museums than they perhaps want to recall. There are nudes! nudes! nudes! all of the time, in any medium you can imagine.

I tell my kids that people really, really, really like sex and sexual images, and that has always been so, and is never going to change. I told them I hope they are always respectful, kind, and thoughtful when they decide to become sexually active.

The magaizines are in the stores because that is where people go to shop. A 13 yr old boy doesn't need SI; all he needs is his own imagination and someone (wearing clothing, even) in front of him whom he finds attractive.

When I see provocative mag covers, I do talk about them with my kids if they notice. I've said, "I think that should be more private" or "Isn't it silly they airbrushed her body like that. Photoshop is a photographer's lie. Sometimes people are just dumb." Or, "remember when we saw those nudes about bible stories at the museum? People like to paint and sculpt their socieital view of beauty. This is ours, aren't we lucky. ;) Maybe it would be better in marble, but that's expensive." I think keeping an easy, even silly ongoing conversation is important. I don't think seeing mag covers or looking at paintings of full-figured gals from Ren art is going to turn a kid into a perv. I do think porn on the internet can be addictive, but that doesn't start with a naked trio sculpted into a fountain in a piaza, or even with a SI cover in ValueMart.

I fully agree with this. We talk about this stuff much more easily now. I used to get all upset at magazines in grocery stores and would complain, write letters, and turn the covers backwards. I'm soooo grateful that my dc don't remember that side of me. I have loosened up considerably - lots of conversations with dh, learning to be more open, museum trips have helped also :) and being close (having frank and great conversations) with my dc. There needs to be a balance.

 

This was written by the same homeschooling dad mentioned above and might be of interest to some. A possibly good reminder to not get overly legalistic. Here's the gist of what he wrote:

 

He and his wife watched first-hand some good friends over the years who raised and homeschooled three sons. The parents could have written most of these comments in this thread. They were horrified by any female skin showing in magazine ads, television commercials, malls, restaurants, etc.

The mother would literally place her hand over the eyes of her sons if a commercial came on during a football game with a scantily clad actress, etc. They were faithful to a fault in making sure their sons weren't exposed to any female skin below the neck or above the knee.

The fruit?

Now those sons are 29, 26 and 23. None is married and two of the three have never been on a date, and have said they don't plan to marry and never want to have children. The third son HAS dated and may get married someday, but also says he never wants to have any children.

The parents are heart-broken that they will never have any grandchildren, and perhaps never have any daughter-in-laws.

Clearly our children are taking in more than we might suspect as they observe our attitudes about everything- including the opposite sex.

Children learn so much more from how we deal with situations and subjects than what we say or forbid about them. How you deal with someone who smokes, or about alcohol or about clothing (or lack thereof) will make a far greater impression on your child than whether you forbid any of the above areas or not.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Negin in Grenada