I have no personal attitude toward right or wrong fashion..

On the contrary, that statement itself constitutes a personal attitude toward fashion. When your moral position is that it's wrong to have a moral position, what then? Today it is fashionable to not have a moral position. Having a moral position would be wrong. And those who have moral positions would be wrong, and therefore, immoral. To announce your moral position is also immoral, because morality is an 'individual' thingee, and one individual should not impose their individual morality upon another.

Oh what a tangled web!
Cliff Trapp | Homepage | 03.09.05 - 5:53 am | #

"Don't ever say the porno left doesn't milk capitalism for all it's worth." Don't know whether to laugh or cry, as it is too true, which is a tragedy. Someone adviced me to get my preteen on birth control ASAP, as it's my duty as a responsible parent... my child who is no longer a teen has never used b/c, altho she saw the demo in high school for condoms, and received a free b/c patch in a welcome-to-college goody bag. The porno left complains that we impose our opines on them, meanwhile, this stuff gets peddled in the public schools, via our tax dollars. My question is- wouldn't encouraging and enabling sex among minors be considered endangering the welfare of a child?
Faith | 03.09.05 - 7:19 am | #

From a sheer practicality perspective, would a condom exposed to body heat for many hours be more prone to breaking?
Jane | Homepage | 03.09.05 - 7:46 am | #

Perhaps this is why some people feel the need to fly airplanes into our buildings. But that can’t be right, because after all it is we who are God’s people! We are still God’s people right? Sure we are. God bless America, land of the free and home of the brave. Perhaps someone should tell the next generation about God instead of thongs with condoms. Let’s face it, rainbows aside, sooner or later HE is going to get fed up with this sort of thing. And unlike Ted Kennedy, I am not a very good swimmer.
Wind Rider | 03.09.05 - 9:33 am | #

"...anything that allows intimacy to be spontaneous, protected and fashionable is a must-have item."

I admit I'm out of touch: I'm having a difficult time comprehending "spontaneous intimacy." She means casual sex, right?
Saint Kansas | Homepage | 03.09.05 - 9:36 am | #

This new product is *obviously* promoting the highest ideals of OSHA. How can the porn-film industry hire child actors, if it hasn't taken every precaution to ensure that their working conditions are conducive to their safety and health? Let's not return to the Dark Ages, people!

(Please don't tell me I have to tag this one with a smiley.)
npetrikov | Homepage | 03.09.05 - 10:11 am | #

The problem is that condoms are not stable for very long at thong temperatures. So what this designer is doing is not even living up to her own stated goals.
barlow | Homepage | 03.09.05 - 10:43 am | #

Now playing: "Thong Temperatures," by The Unstable Condoms.
With apologies to Dave Barry for stealing his schtick.
Brett | 03.09.05 - 11:12 am | #

Now that Dawn has a day job, I wonder if I can get away with posting that the feminist movement, once again, succeeds only in promising young women they can have their c-ck and sheathe it too.

Edited By Siteowner
Saint Kansas | Homepage | 03.09.05 - 11:14 am | #

Just when I think the insanity can't get any more pronounced. I don't know whether to thank Dawn for these updates on the abyss or curse her for increasing my awareness. This kind of stuff is painful to read.

That Martineau woman is a mother?!?!?!
gormuu | Homepage | 03.09.05 - 11:47 am | #

Only Dawn could work an Allen Ginsberg reference into something like this.
CGHill | Homepage | 03.09.05 - 12:02 pm | #

Well, I guess that you got your answer. Nothing gets past Dawn!
Wind Rider | 03.09.05 - 12:07 pm | #

So piggishness can be profitable and swinishness can be chic. At least the young women found this marketing gimmick repulsive.

But why are we amazed in these days when nut cases who coin terms like "heteronormative" are taken seriously or that a moral nut case would market garbage for our daughters?
John Hetman | 03.09.05 - 12:24 pm | #

If this isn't a societal indicator, nothing is.

It probably wasn't that long ago that a mother designing underwear for thier daughters would have used material made out of metal.
Jeff Miller | Homepage | 03.09.05 - 1:41 pm | #

How is a thong "discrete?"

Another thing - how is it immoral to actually TEACH a moral? How are we supposed to know right from wrong if the very concepts are verboten in polite company? It is nothing less than a mercy of God that the youngsters are savvier than their elders about this. Maybe the pendulum is swinging back a bit.
Nightfly | Homepage | 03.09.05 - 1:50 pm | #

"But your honor! I submit that the alleged victim of this so-called sexual assault was at the time wearing a thong clearly labelled 'No Guilt.'"

I'm going to introduce the "No Innocence" line of kids' fetish wear, 'cause I care so d*mn much about children.
Saint Kansas | Homepage | 03.09.05 - 2:37 pm | #

I noticed that the motto of that college newspaper is "Doing it daily since 1960." Hardly surprising that they ran this article.
P. McGrath | 03.09.05 - 2:57 pm | #

I was going to express dismay at the same quotation that Saint Kansas already decried, but rather than be redundant, I'll just post wrily that this daft mother thinks she's saved her pre-teens from another somebody-done-somebody-wrong thong ...
Jon | Homepage | 03.09.05 - 4:04 pm | #

Jane's right about the body temperature issue. It's the same reason men are not supposed to keep condoms in their wallets.

But isn't that so clever? Guess what happens when a condom breaks? An unplanned pregnancy occurs! Planned Parenthood to the rescue!
P.R. | 03.09.05 - 5:33 pm | #

Based on the way this mother is raising her daughters, I would say the real problem with the thong she designed is that it has room for only ONE condom per outing.
Ed Jordan | Homepage | 03.09.05 - 11:21 pm | #

Windwriter writes: "Perhaps this is why some people feel the need to fly airplanes into our buildings."

If HE is paying so much attention, maybe HE should have saved all the Christians and God-loving people in the buildings from a fiery death.

Sorry Dawn, I agree with the stuff about the thongs, but this comment was a bit extreme.
Wind Writer | Homepage | 03.10.05 - 12:45 am | #

I am a bit curious about something. "Wind Rider" is the one responsible for this, "Perhaps this is why some people feel the need to fly airplanes into our buildings." But Wind Wrtier's reaction sounds like s/he is attributing it to Dawn.
I agree that the comment was more-than-a-little extreme, and it was certainly was out of place in the discussion. I would even go so far as to say it was being completely sarcastic en toto and was written by somebody who not only does not believe a word of what they were writing but just another person seeking to portray those who do respond here regularly as a bunch of religious bigots.
Whether or not I am right or wrong on that point, whatever it was, it was not written by Dawn.
J Rob | Homepage | 03.10.05 - 7:44 am | #

I agree, J Rob, on all your points.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 03.10.05 - 8:59 am | #

Teenagers were corrupted long ago when the marriage age was 13.

We are now trying to uncorrupt them. Somewhat.

Is it working?

Somewhat.

One good way to insure strong families is to delay marriage. It seems that unmarried sex increases under such a system. Jews for quite some time have tended to marry later have been dealing with this "problem" for at least 100 years if not longer. What is their answer? A very high rate of unmarried sex. Typically for the male 5 to 10 partners before marriage.

Deal with it.
M. Simon | Homepage | 03.10.05 - 10:53 am | #

I don't understand that last post. It went right over my head, seriously. Maybe try again and talk to me like I'm a 13-year old.
gormuu | Homepage | 03.10.05 - 12:55 pm | #

"Perhaps this is why some people feel the need to fly airplanes into our buildings."

Since this is a quote of my words let me add to the mix of comments. For [Wind Writer] I am {Wind Rider} so please do not attribute my quote citation with your tag.

{Windwriter writes: "Perhaps this is why some people feel the need to fly airplanes into our buildings."} Correction of citation to Wind Rider

Yes, J Rob does seem to have the players right but fails to understand the intent of the statement. J Rob, please allow me to address your issue. You said in part "I agree that the comment was more-than-a-little extreme, and it was certainly was out of place in the discussion.

I do not believe that my opinion is "more than a little extreme" or "a out of place." By saying that, you are casting your belief system upon me. I do not tell anyone here what opinion she or he should hold. Why then do you feel it important to tell me what opinion I should hold? The entire concept is to have a voice. If everyone thought the same thing the point of this forum would be moot.

"I would even go so far as to say it was being completely sarcastic en toto and was written by somebody who not only does not believe a word of what they were writing but just another person seeking to portray those who do respond here regularly as a bunch of religious bigots."

Yet one more comment without merit. You have managed to define someone whom you know very little at best.

The point was that the moral decay in the U.S. "Teen thongs with condoms" is one of the main reasons which the "enemy" uses to justify their action against us. Am I saying that they are justified? Only in their warped minds. But with things like the thong issue we give them ammunition for their hate. So it is a comment in context. Morality, or in this case the lack of morality has many results far beyond the perception of someone being easy.

Wind Writer says "If HE is paying so much attention, maybe HE should have saved all the Christians and God-loving people in the buildings from a fiery death."

Wind Writer, that issue was only a part of my comment in that these issues of morality will be dealt with by a higher authority, so don't let it bother you.

However since you brought it up I would be more than happy to respond. The fact is HE did address the matter. The fact that so many people died does not indicate that he is not grieved. It does not indicate that HE is not even now taking action to address and rectify the issue. If you would like to get an idea of how then I suggest that you go and see "The Passion of the Christ" which is about to be re-released soon.

Respectfully:

Wind Rider
Michael | Homepage | 03.10.05 - 1:15 pm | #

on a slightly different note - thongs are bad for women's health. I see a horrible increase in bladder and vaginal infections in women who wear them, and I have a hard time understanding how they ever became popular.
There is nothing less sexy to my mind than wirithing in pain with a bladder infection.
alicia | Homepage | 03.10.05 - 6:14 pm | #

thongs bad for womens health?
auctualy it is healthier for women not wear any underpants at all and few women did untill the mid victorian era.(they were 'invented' in the early 1800s but didn't catch on untill later) even then those underpants were loose and crotchless which is much better for you than the modern ones.
lar | 03.11.05 - 1:48 am | #

Actually, thongs are VERY bad for a woman's health because they cause surface injuries allowing contamination.

Interesting that the story didn't note that one of the fastest spreading STD's isn't stopped AT ALL by condoms. The virus which causes gential warts is too small; it passes right through the condoms.

And yes, temperature is a problem. But so is sebascus oil combined with sweat. It can seriously degrade the condom, depending on how long the condom stays in the thong. And what if the condom isn't used and the thong gets washed? Seriously--even if I didn't think this was a moral issue--I think it is a plain bad idea.

I asked my daughters (17, almost 20, and 23). They weren't very impressed by either the clothes or the girls who would wear them. To paraphrase their reaction...why don't the chicks who wear these just streetwalk? At least that way they'd get paid.
kschlenker | Homepage | 03.11.05 - 4:54 am | #

Michael, I will grant that I may have been out of line in labeling your post as sarcastic, but it was not without reason.
"...because after all it is we who are God’s people! We are still God’s people right? Sure we are. God bless America, land of the free and home of the brave" is a standard mock used by athiests and the immoral to portray orthodox Christians. Christian orthodoxy does not consider the US or its citizens to be "God's chosen". There are fundamentalist sects that do, but orthodoxy does not.
Second my comment was not to define the person but was based on years of experience dealing with anti-religious bigots. If you do not wish to be lumped as such you might want to consider not using verbage that reads like it came from the American Atheist Handbook for Dealing with Those Silly Theists (Yes I know that book does not really exist)
J Rob | Homepage | 03.11.05 - 7:43 am | #

Fine J. Rob, so I did slip in a little sarcasm. But it was only said in some degree with humor. And God only knows we can use a little humor. However, if we are “God’s People” as we have always proclaimed in the world view, “One Nation under God” “In God we Trust” etc. it would be hard to prove based on todays “National M.T.V. Morality.” No, I am not an anti religious bigot. Even with that said I do have my views which some might perceive as bigoted. But don’t we all? If not I guess that we would all attend the same church and worship the same God. Some might think that we do. I don’t! My God does not teach me to fly airplanes into tall buildings filled with people. Yet my God is one God. But I must add that I do not perceive God from the perspective of Orthodoxy either.
Wind Rider | 03.11.05 - 9:37 am | #

Hey, the way society is going, in a few years they'll just be calling it an old-fashioned love thong.
Jon S. | Homepage | 03.13.05 - 4:18 pm | #

Heard it in a love thong. Heard it in a love thong, can’t be wrong!
Wind Rider | 03.13.05 - 6:56 pm | #

"Teenagers were corrupted long ago when the marriage age was 13.

We are now trying to uncorrupt them. Somewhat."

So they're corrupt if they have sex and babies while married, but uncorrupt if they have casual sex with several different partners before they finally get around to getting married?

"One good way to insure strong families is to delay marriage. It seems that unmarried sex increases under such a system. Jews for quite some time have tended to marry later have been dealing with this "problem" for at least 100 years if not longer. What is their answer? A very high rate of unmarried sex. Typically for the male 5 to 10 partners before marriage.

Deal with it."

Seems to me that family weakness, as measured in the divorce rate, is up along with the average age at marriage compared to a few decades ago.

I'd rather see accelerated education and earlier adulthood and marriage, to narrow the window of opportunity for derailing one's whole future with out-of-wedlock babies.
Ken | Homepage | 03.13.05 - 10:39 pm | #