What's Wrong With This Outfit, Mom?

What's Wrong With This Outfit, Mom?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111801778.html
http://tinyurl.com/ex83c

By Patricia Dalton
Sunday, November 20, 2005; B01

I heard about it in my kitchen before I read about it in the newspaper:
After visiting the expanded Tysons Corner Center this fall, my
23-year-old daughter said, "You won't believe how weird Victoria's
Secret's gotten: It's all red and black with a bunch of mannequins that
look like porn stars." Some shoppers were so outraged at the raunchy
lingerie display that they threatened to boycott the store; others just
yawned.

I've been hearing a variation on this theme with increasing frequency
in my office. Mothers voice distress over the suggestive clothing their
teen and preteen daughters are wearing, inside and outside the house.
In fact, conflict over clothing is what prompts them to come in for
family therapy. The daughters themselves may be imperious or sullen,
but almost all employ the everyone-is-doing-it excuse. And an awful lot
of girls are doing it.

Women once complained about being reduced to sex objects. Now, their
daughters are volunteering to be sex objects. And while parents
register disapproval, they often fail to take action. In that failure,
they unwittingly place their daughters at risk by allowing them to
bypass girlhood. When a daughter moves straight from little girl to
woman, she's playing a role rather than gradually learning to live her
own life. These girls may seem whole, but they aren't. There is often a
lost girl inside.

Many who endorse provocative styles of dress have picked up on the
liberal message of the '60s and taken it a step further. They see those
who express distaste over the sexually explicit as hung up,
old-fashioned. One young woman pointed out to me, "It's almost
politically incorrect to say that something is inappropriate."

One of the most unsettling sights today is that of little girls dressed
in teeny bikinis at the pool, or walking around in low-rise pants with
midriff tops, or in heels and skimpy dresses, sometimes complete with
makeup and jewelry. And this doesn't occur only at dance recitals. It
can be everyday attire.

Have we come a long way, baby? The Lennon Sisters and Gidget of
girlhoods gone by are light-years from today's Britney Spears and
Lindsay Lohan. The bridge between these two generations of stars was
Madonna -- before she had children and cleaned up her act. Sometime
over the past couple of decades, while we adults weren't looking, class
went out and trash came in.

Think back a few decades (if you're old enough) to the arrival of the
pill, the first reliable method of birth control. What we're witnessing
now is the fallout from the subsequent sexual revolution. Gone was the
fear of unwanted pregnancy. Along came the assumption that sexual
problems were the result of hang-ups, and that relaxing the strictures
and structure would free everyone to live in a kind of sexual utopia.

Well, the so-called utopia is here, and older women have reason to be
alarmed at the dangers young women are bringing upon themselves. These
girls are treated as objects just as surely as in any earlier
generation. It's pre-liberation treatment in post-liberation disguise.
"Turn back before it's too late!" we want to warn them -- because what
awaits them is not Prince Charming. It is more likely to be loneliness
and regret.

For some reason, though, many adult women are failing to follow the
instincts they've relied on for eons to protect themselves and their
daughters. No longer are there common standards of dress and behavior
-- which parents, schools and society used to work together to enforce.
In my high school, we wore uniforms; your skirt had to touch the floor
when you knelt -- and the teachers checked! Parents are left to fight
it out, from neckline to hemline, with their teenage daughters.

Mothers who come into my office frequently express doubt about their
own judgment, not knowing where to draw the line when their daughters
dress provocatively. Girls, meanwhile, freely admit that they are only
aping what they see in the media. One young woman told me, "I love 'Sex
and the City,' but I know it's contributed" to the problem. "Desperate
Housewives" does, too.

It's hardly surprising: Jessica Simpson and her husband agreed to have
an MTV camera record virtually their every move as newlyweds. Paris
Hilton unwittingly personifies the harm that women do to themselves and
their capacity for intimacy when she says: "My boyfriends always tell
me I'm sexy. Sexy, but not sexual." The lights are on, but there's
nobody home.

When I see little kids dressed like vamps, I'm reminded of the words of
author Marie Winn in her 1981 book "Children Without Childhood": "The
age of protection has ended." She described the research of the
Austrian animal behaviorist Konrad Lorenz regarding what he called
neotenic characteristics in the young of various species and the
purpose they serve. In children, these characteristics include outsized
heads and eyes, and short, rounded bodily proportions. Lorenz
hypothesized that these traits function as built-in "releasing
mechanisms," eliciting nurturing, protective responses from adults.

Parents -- sometimes without even realizing it -- put their daughters
at risk when they camouflage these features by allowing them to dress
in adult ways. Such dress prompts the child to imitate adult female
behavior that she doesn't understand. This can short-circuit normal
development. It can also encourage older children and adults to relate
to these young girls as sexual beings, sometimes with tragic
consequences.

My younger sister told me a story about visiting the home of friends
when the teenage daughter's date arrived. The daughter came downstairs
in a T-shirt that read, "Strippers do it with poles." The parents
seemed nonplussed; it was the boy who said to them, "You're letting her
go out of the house in that ?"

Some parents are just misguided when it comes to monitoring their
daughters' dress. I will be the first to admit that mental health
experts have contributed to the problem. A good example is the school
of thought once prevalent among psychologists that even young kids need
to have a voice in all decisions that affect them -- with the corollary
that, if they marshal a particularly good argument, they can often get
what they want. Another approach is to give children two choices,
rather than telling them what they have to do. But my personal favorite
is the zany idea that parents should never say "No," because it would
be too negative! It isn't surprising that they also have a tough time
telling their daughters, "You're not going out of this house in that
outfit. End of subject."

Another even bigger problem I see is indecision: Parents lack
confidence in their instincts and in their judgment. Previous
generations had no trouble making hard and fast rules. Parents in those
days looked like and conducted themselves as adults and role models;
kids and teenagers wanted to grow up and get the perks of adult life as
soon as possible. Therapists see the inverse today. There are lots of
parents who are uncomfortable with their grownup role and want to be
young again; their kids don't want to grow up, or wish to postpone it
as long as possible.

There are definitely cases I see in which girls imitate their mothers'
sexy style of dress, with their mothers' blessing. (Although there was
one high school girl who confided that she was glad she didn't have a
mother who looked like Goldie Hawn -- too tough an act to follow!) But
the majority of mothers want their daughters to dress more
conservatively but are afraid to take their daughters on. Fathers, too.

They make the mistake of thinking that a good relationship is largely
conflict-free. One mother said to me, "I hate to rock the boat when
she's a teenager; we got along so well when she was little." They don't
want a child who complains about them to her friends and the rest of
the world on her blog.

I've polled a number of therapist colleagues, and virtually everyone
agreed: We almost never see autocratic, dictatorial parents today; it
is far more common to see parents who have relinquished power, and kids
who have assumed it. Which makes for very unhappy young people. They
are petulant and angry; they lack respect for their parents because
their parents haven't inspired respect through real leadership.

Without that leadership, kids have trouble recognizing lines of
propriety. Boys don't know where the line is and where to stop; and
girls -- or gurrrrrrrrls, as the new terminology puts it -- who have
become accustomed to their deliberately outr styles of dress, are
displaying increasingly aggressive sexual behavior.

One example of this aggression recently played out at a local private
school, where it was charmingly dubbed "robbing the cradle." Two senior
girls each solicited a freshman boy for sexual purposes by wearing a
T-shirt to school with "I want (boy's name)" on it. It created quite a
stir and bestowed some status on the younger boys in question. It also
puts parents on alert that in our sexually predatory culture, parents
also need to worry about safeguarding their boys from the girls, not
just vice versa.

The girls who dress the most outrageously are often those most starved
for adult male attention, first and foremost from their fathers. This
happens most commonly with girls whose fathers have disappeared from
their lives, perhaps following a divorce, or because their workaholic
schedules leave them little time for their children. Children who are
raised with attention and affection tend to identify with and admire
their parents. This identification is the basis for both discipline and
the transmission of values. Without it, parents can't do their job.

I often recommend that fathers be the parent to take the lead in
setting limits on their daughters' dress, because opposite sex
offspring typically cut that parent more slack. Fathers can say,
"Honey, you can't wear that. I know teenage boys -- I was one!" A dad
like this is looking out for his daughter and treating her as someone
special.

While talk and reality shows and tell-all memoirs thrive and a majority
of teenagers today say that they would like to be famous, there are
still girls and women who value privacy and modesty. They reveal a
quiet confidence, a different kind of glamour. Even famous people can
be modest. They don't have to be Britney Spears. Take Audrey Hepburn,
who has no counterpart today. Part of her allure lay in the way she
embodied humility and modesty. Yet she also conveyed spirit and
originality and a strong sense of self.

Even though she worked in an industry that often promotes commonness,
she was an uncommon woman. Even though our daughters live in a culture
that clearly promotes coarseness, they can be uncommon, too.

Author's e-mail:

Patricia Dalton is a clinical psychologist in private practice in
Washington.

fgoodwin wrote:

There are definitely cases I see in which girls imitate their mothers'
sexy style of dress, with their mothers' blessing. (Although there was
one high school girl who confided that she was glad she didn't have a
mother who looked like Goldie Hawn -- too tough an act to follow!) But
the majority of mothers want their daughters to dress more
conservatively but are afraid to take their daughters on. Fathers, too.

We have pretty strict rules in my house about what is allowed to be
worn. The biggest one right now is...if my daughter lifts her arms, and
I see skin between the bottom of her shirt and the top of her pants,
it's too small and she's not going out like that.

The biggest problems we have with enforcing this is first, it's hard to
find clothes to BUY that aren't short-waisted and cropped-tops. And
she's long-waisted to boot, making it a bigger problem. The second, and
usually bigger, problem is that my husband's mother is of the "I don't
see what's wrong with a little skin" variety, and my grandmother who is
of the "all the girls are wearing it" variety. While they have flat-out
forbidden her to wear a couple outfits out of the house, and are some
that just skirt my borders and it's harder to draw that line against,
especially when she receives the outfit while we're visiting and
Katrina's wearing it, and when we do the "lifted arms" test Gramma gets
very "You don't have a PROBLEM with that outfit, do you?" Well, yes, I
do, but thanks for putting me on the spot.

*sigh*

Michelle
Flutist

Michelle J. Haines wrote:
fgoodwin wrote:

There are definitely cases I see in which girls imitate their mothers'
sexy style of dress, with their mothers' blessing. (Although there was
one high school girl who confided that she was glad she didn't have a
mother who looked like Goldie Hawn -- too tough an act to follow!) But
the majority of mothers want their daughters to dress more
conservatively but are afraid to take their daughters on. Fathers, too.

We have pretty strict rules in my house about what is allowed to be
worn. The biggest one right now is...if my daughter lifts her arms, and
I see skin between the bottom of her shirt and the top of her pants,
it's too small and she's not going out like that.

I insist on long shirts which fortunately are in abundance right now!

The biggest problems we have with enforcing this is first, it's hard to
find clothes to BUY that aren't short-waisted and cropped-tops. And
she's long-waisted to boot, making it a bigger problem. The second, and
usually bigger, problem is that my husband's mother is of the "I don't
see what's wrong with a little skin" variety, and my grandmother who is
of the "all the girls are wearing it" variety. While they have flat-out
forbidden her to wear a couple outfits out of the house, and are some
that just skirt my borders and it's harder to draw that line against,
especially when she receives the outfit while we're visiting and
Katrina's wearing it, and when we do the "lifted arms" test Gramma gets
very "You don't have a PROBLEM with that outfit, do you?" Well, yes, I
do, but thanks for putting me on the spot.

My big problem is that I dry clothes to death :-) Unless I remember to
pull the shirts out of the washer and hang them instead of putting them
in the dryer, I usually end up shrinking the shirt.

Regarding your inlaws....thank god mine live Farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
away! My daughter and husband visited them last summer and dd came
home with a bunch of eye makeup that my sister in law gave her. She is
34 years old (SIL) and has two young sons. OY. DD 11 is too young and
naturally beautiful for eye makeup!!! In laws across the country is a
__good thing__ :-)

*sigh*

Michelle
Flutist

I feel for those with daughters. And I wish I had a solution.

When in shopping malls, and the like, I am frequently heard saying
under my breath... "That is why I don't have girls." (I have two
toddler sons.) I can't believe what I am seeing very young girls
wearing. 15 years ago, you would not have seen a hooker dressed so
provocatively. Don't think I am some old lady (well, it depends on
who you ask I just turned 30.

IMO, it is such poor taste, but that is beside the point. I will agree
that it has to do with they way that these girls today want to be
portrade. There is a very clear message that they are sending out...
and they know it. They have such poor self-esteem that the only thing
they think that can get them attention (from anyone... parents,
teachers, peers, strangers, society, etc...) is through shock value and
sexual teasing.

You are so right fgoodwin, when you said: "What awaits them is not
Prince Charming. It is more likely to be loneliness and regret. "

Too bad that it will be probably too late when most of them figure that
out.

In article .com,
"Mom of 2 Boys!" wrote:

I feel for those with daughters. And I wish I had a solution.

When in shopping malls, and the like, I am frequently heard saying
under my breath... "That is why I don't have girls." (I have two
toddler sons.) I can't believe what I am seeing very young girls
wearing. 15 years ago, you would not have seen a hooker dressed so
provocatively. Don't think I am some old lady (well, it depends on
who you ask I just turned 30.

IMO, it is such poor taste, but that is beside the point.

I think this post is pretty funny. I'm sure my mom, and her mom, and
her mom, said the same thing.

In my high school, the guys couldn't have long hair. The girls, of
course, were expected to have long hair. A guy with long hair (longer
than a few inches) or a girl with short hair (shorter than a few inches)
could be expected to be sent home. The guys had to wear pants, and the
girls had to wear skirts or dresses. The girls were forced to expose
their legs, but if they exposed their knees, well, off to home they
went. If the students wanted to wear red, or blue, or any color, nobody
cared. When my kids were in high school, wearing red or blue meant
being sent home. Those are GANG colors.

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

Dan, it is too bad that you don't see the seriousness of this
situation. You obviously have your head in a very very very very deep
hole.

Yes, I will agree that each generation thinks the next is "going to
hell in a hand basket", because they don't do things just as their
predecessors. You can't deny that today is different. Very different
from your generations of the 1940's & 1950's (I'm right about that,
aren't I). This is the world of AIDS. Not to mention rampant other
sexually transmitted disease.

So, what you are saying Dan, is that it is okay for young girls (we are
talking as young as 6 and 8) to use themselves as sex objects! Believe
me, they learn that young. At what point Dan, do you stand up and say,
"this is not okay!!!" It is not okay for their spirit or the soul of
who they are!

It will take girls generations to recover from this. Dan, would you
take a 14, 15, 18, 22 year old girl seriously if she were dressed in a
skirt not covering her g-string, in a see through top with a see
through bra, wearing black leather thigh boots. Stop drooling. Shame
on you, Dan! Shame on you!

Mom of 2 Boys! wrote:

I feel for those with daughters. And I wish I had a solution.

When in shopping malls, and the like, I am frequently heard saying
under my breath... "That is why I don't have girls."
---------------
No, the reason you don't have girls is spermic statistics.


(I have two
toddler sons.) I can't believe what I am seeing very young girls
wearing. 15 years ago, you would not have seen a hooker dressed so
provocatively.
----------------
That's because you were abused antisexually by fundie bigot antisex
parents who believed in the Xtian Sex-model of sin, instead of Jesus'
model, greed and cruelty, since his had nothing whatsoever to do with
sex that was honest.


Don't think I am some old lady (well, it depends on
who you ask I just turned 30.
-----------------
Your beliefs are of a bygone era, time just hastened on faster than
you had hoped.


IMO, it is such poor taste, but that is beside the point.
---------------
There is NO such thing as "taste", your "taste" is no more than a
style both of wearing and of thinking, and you're backward.


I will agree
that it has to do with they way that these girls today want to be
portrade.
-----------------
"Portrayed." And yes, it is advertisement for sex, dress ALWAYS HAS
BEEN!! That is is finally OBVIOUS should not surprise, your pretense
that it surprises actually doesn't reflect your surprise but your own
brainwashed antisexuality. These girls will be equally scandalized,
if their minds are then outmoded, by their daughter going on dates
NAKED!


There is a very clear message that they are sending out...
and they know it.
------------------
Yes, they know they are advertising for sex, they are not deluded,
it's too OBVIOUS for that, they regard your antisexuality as stupid
and tired and your concerns meaningless.


They have such poor self-esteem
---------------------
Thinking that would be a big mistake on your part. If you ask them
what they want they will tell you, they want SEX, they want to GET
****ED, they enjoy sex, oral and vaginal sex, and they WANT MORE OF
IT IN THEIR LIVES! Now teens that have sex know better than toadmit
that to their parents, JUST LIKE YOU KNOW WHAT NOT TO EVEN BOTHER TO
TRY TO TELL *YOUR* PARENTS! They just shake their heads at how lame
and stupid you are!


that the only thing
they think that can get them attention (from anyone... parents,
teachers, peers, strangers, society, etc...) is through shock value and
sexual teasing.
-------------------------
They have little interest in your "attention", they like to scandalize
you, because you're easy to freak, but their attentions are elsewhere.


You are so right fgoodwin, when you said: "What awaits them is not
Prince Charming. It is more likely to be loneliness and regret. "
-------------------------
Don't diddle yourself that way, they won't be any different than
people your age who wore their skirts a little higher or bikini
tops in summer.


Too bad that it will be probably too late when most of them figure that
out.
------------------------
They've already figured that out, and they have more and better sex
than you do. What surprises me is that you're of my daughter's
generation and that she would laugh her ass off at the way you
carry on. She was a rampant pro-sexual when you were still being
brainwashed by your reactionary parents, evidently. She had her
first **** at age 11 in her room at home, with our blessing.
Steve

Mom of 2 Boys! wrote:

Dan, it is too bad that you don't see the seriousness of this
situation. You obviously have your head in a very very very very deep
hole.

Yes, I will agree that each generation thinks the next is "going to
hell in a hand basket", because they don't do things just as their
predecessors. You can't deny that today is different.
-------------
Yeah, they've finally freed themselves from your nutty Fundy crap!


Very different
from your generations of the 1940's & 1950's (I'm right about that,
aren't I). This is the world of AIDS. Not to mention rampant other
sexually transmitted disease.
----------------
Not if you take a few precautions. The kids who get STDs these days
are YOU clowns' sons and daughters, because they are sexually
undereducated and massively bothered by braiwashed guilt and other
programmed phony social concerns that block them from their better
goal, to join a reliable group of ****-friends who stay within their
group and get tested and record and present a sexual diary to their
other friends/partners for their information and perusal, and to plan
and execute proper multiple conctraceptive and barrier methods until
and unless they know their friends well enough to trust them with a
high degree or assurance!

Instead your kind of kids are dating people their barely know, playing
life-threatening games with each other, and doing this insane stupid
monogamy game of muscial sexual chairs when they should be enjoying
all their friends sexually and worrying about precisely who to pair
up with much later, if at ALL!


So, what you are saying Dan, is that it is okay for young girls (we are
talking as young as 6 and 8) to use themselves as sex objects!
--------------------------
At that age I'd say it's pretty irrelevant, wouldn't you? They could
be nude for all the boys their age care or matter. And it would be
far more and better instructive.


Believe
me, they learn that young. At what point Dan, do you stand up and say,
"this is not okay!!!" It is not okay for their spirit or the soul of
who they are!
----------------------
Nonsense, it is fine to be a "sex object", that term was always totally
bogus, everybody is a physical "object" in the universe, and most of
our attractions to others are based on it, initially. To interest others
in you sexually is fine in a new time when sex can be merely good fun
with friends, and monogamy is tired, stupid, failing, and ridiculous.
Not that people will not finally/typically choose one or more favorite
people to sleep with when they go home from the party, but it's that
sex is and always has been based on superficially attained physical
body-based sensation, not on anyone's lofty pretenses or complex
machinations. Nor does it need to be.

Contraceptives/Abortion, and the perfection of contraceptive methods
shortly to come, have made sex FULLY DISCONNECTED FROM the political
and economic problems of accidental procreation and the concerns of a
society for the care of children produced by "fun sex".


It will take girls generations to recover from this.
-----------------
Don't be STUPID, NO ONE NEEDS to "recover" from this. It is the FUTURE!


Dan, would you
take a 14, 15, 18, 22 year old girl seriously if she were dressed in a
skirt not covering her g-string, in a see through top with a see
through bra, wearing black leather thigh boots. Stop drooling. Shame
on you, Dan! Shame on you!
---------------------------------
Bull****, 14 year olds girls ARE for older men to prize and pamper,
that is what they are actually for, when we were groupsexual tribal
apes on the African plain and in the European caves, the young titted
girls loved the attention and the ****ing they got from all the boys
and men, and so did the older women enjoy the attentions of the horny
young boys. The problems arose when we got just smart enough to know
that sex got you pregnant and that men had a genetic contribution to
the child, and that birth could kill, then when we had enough for the
rich towant to steal it, suddenly the party was over, everybody got
stingy and crass and tried to retain all advantage for themselves.
When we make wealth illegal by more democratic political control of
wealth, which won't be long now, and with birth control and modern
medicine and modern society with child care getting ever closer to a
right, that will all reverse to our True Tribal GroupSexual Nature.

Now that we are getting rid of monarchy and feudalism and entrenched
wealth and Xtian Fundy-ism and the stupid knowledge of whose child was
whose so the rich could play favorites in search of their sick quest
for dynastic political immortality, we shall back out of the blind
alley of human development that *IS* the sickness of the antisexual
western culture that has half-destroyed the world.
Steve

In article om,
"Mom of 2 Boys!" wrote:

Dan, it is too bad that you don't see the seriousness of this
situation. You obviously have your head in a very very very very deep
hole.

Yes, I will agree that each generation thinks the next is "going to
hell in a hand basket", because they don't do things just as their
predecessors. You can't deny that today is different. Very different
from your generations of the 1940's & 1950's (I'm right about that,
aren't I). This is the world of AIDS. Not to mention rampant other
sexually transmitted disease.

I'm with Dan on this, and I think close to his age (born in 1952).


So, what you are saying Dan, is that it is okay for young girls (we are
talking as young as 6 and 8) to use themselves as sex objects! Believe
me, they learn that young. At what point Dan, do you stand up and say,
"this is not okay!!!" It is not okay for their spirit or the soul of
who they are!

No.

What he's saying (and I agree) is that no matter how far back you go,
there are adults who say this same thing about the fashions worn by the
NEXT generation.

Certainly, MY generation was told that our miniskirts were an
inappropriate display.

And in other generations, showing ankle was inappropriate, and a way of
"using" yourself as a sex object.


It will take girls generations to recover from this. Dan, would you
take a 14, 15, 18, 22 year old girl seriously if she were dressed in a
skirt not covering her g-string, in a see through top with a see
through bra, wearing black leather thigh boots. Stop drooling. Shame
on you, Dan! Shame on you!

I agree with Dan -- you are taking the clothes too seriously.

Yes, the teens are dressing in a way that I, personally, do not care for
-- but last time I checked, most 14 yo's dressed to appeal to other 14
yo's, NOT to old farts like me (and Dan and you.)

Frankly, I don't think today's clothes say any more about the girls
wearing them than the mini-skirts of my youth said about ME. The girls
don't wear them because they are lacking in self-esteem or because they
see themselves primarily as sex objects -- they wear them because they
are today's fashions.

It's just clothes.

The clothes YOU wear every day would scandalize someone of my great
grandparent's generation. Bikini's were certainly viewed with as much
horror in THEIR day as thongs are now.

No, I'm NOT suggesting that parents ought to allow their daughters to
wear whatever they want, or that schools ought to abandon dress codes.

I AM saying the situation is no where NEAR as dire as you make out.

I'd like to see more little girls wearing CHILDREN'S cloths, too -- but
I am not as upset with the 8 and 9 yo's who wear adult clothes as I am
with the adults (moms, usually) who actually seem to encourage this --
thinking a 9 yo in heels is cute, for example. I worry about the
shortening of childhood.

I'm not convinced that today is any different than past eras. I
remember the horror with which my father viewed the Beatles, and the
awful, disrespectful way they dressed -- and what the world was coming
to when young men dressed that way in public, and let their hair go like
that. Recently, I was watching a documentary that included their first
appearance on the Ed Sullivan show: they were wearing MATCHING, neat
SUITS, and their hair barely hit their collars and was clean and well
trimmed. But to my Dad, they were a sign of the total collapse of
civilization.

And you should have HEARD what Grandpa had to say about women in 2 piece
bathing suits -- what kind of trollop would wear something like that in
public -- she was just ADVERTISING herself!

Your language just sounds so much like both of them it is almost funny.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article , R. Steve Walz says...


That's because you were abused antisexually by fundie bigot antisex
parents who believed in the Xtian Sex-model of sin, instead of Jesus'
model, greed and cruelty, since his had nothing whatsoever to do with
sex that was honest.

This thread has been hereby Stevified.

Banty