If "Bite Me" T-Shirt was offensive, how about this one...

Nonetheless,
what's commonplace on the coasts can still earn you some trouble in
the heartland.

And I've got the restraining orders to prove it!
Frank Reid

The wife finally got fed-up with ya, heh?

Op --things got so bad at work, my co-workers took out a class action
restrainin' order on me :~^ ( --

Had one of them after the bean burrito/egg salad sandwich lunch at the
buffet.
Frank Reid

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:35:45 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:18:54 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

On Dec 12, 10:59 am, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

That's one of those things that's simutaneously wrong and sadly
reflective of social norms on many fronts. Hard to believe (well, I
guess not) that it's offered at the nation's largest retailer.

Joe F.

I saw nothing on the underwear or the label thereon that indicated size
or for whom it was intended. The _website_ brought "adolescent girls"
into things, saying it was in the "junior" department." As anyone who
has ever shopped for a (adult) female can attest, "junior" has nothing
to do with age and moreover, looking at the hanger as well as making a
fair guess that the price tag and hang tag aren't the size of a postage
stamp, I'd say that they would be a bit large the average 10-12 y.o.
girl and appear more the size appropriate for a female of adult size.

And moreover, while the "2.96" pricing is "Walmart-ish," there's no
_proof_ that they are actually being hawked there to _anyone_ - again,
one must take the website at it's word. Admittedly, I find it much
easier to believe that Walmart would (knowingly) have such and market it
to college-aged and twenty-something girls then I would they would
attempt to (again, knowingly) sell them to "adolescent girls."

And finally, I'd offer that if they are intended for over-18 gals,
whoever came up with the logo obviously doesn't know much about
women...if they did, the panties would say "Who needs THEIR OWN credit
card..."

A little follow-up: My SO and I were in a Walmart this evening (Ocean
Springs, MS) to pick up a few groceries and I had mentioned this to her
over dinner, so we went looking for them. Yep, Walmart sells 'em and
they say "If you have a Santa Claus" on the ass. And if they are
intended for "adolescent girls," someone is doing a _really_ bad job in
both placement and sizing. They were in the "sexy lingerie" (lace
thongs, push-up bras, etc.) section - there was no "junior" department
for such, just all (adult) sizes, from about Angelina Jolie to about
shudder Rosie O'Donnell. Moreover, my SO, thankfully familiar with
sexy skivvies, informs me that there is no such thing as "juniors" in
underwear because "junior" refers to a cut of clothes (ala "misses,"
"petites," etc.), not an intended age of the wearer - that much I sorta
knew from shopping for her. And she informs me that "juniors" or
whatever name underwear makes no sense. She further informs me that my
78 YO, 5' 10" 125 lb. stepmother probably wears "junior" in a lot of her
casual clothes. OK, I'll take her word on those details.

As an aside, about the most "risque" thing that we saw being hawked to
"adolescent girls" (in a totally separate "Girls" department) was a tank
top with a (fully-dressed, but dolled-up) cartoon girl with the logo
"Bratz" on it, mixed in with the "Hello, Kitty" pyjamas and various
other decidedly unrisque stuff. While the "Bratz" thing is probably not
the best image for any child, male or female, anyone who would find it
"sexy," even on an adult, has some REAL issues.

R
....and BTW, the Walton family has, for all intents and practical
purposes, nothing whatsoever to do with what is or isn't on the shelves
at Walmart, good, bad, or otherwise...

"Mike" wrote in message
...
On 12 Dec, 22:18, "Wolfgang" wrote:

Whether one finds that offensive is really a matter of attitude and
perspective, and it could be argued that it is a joke that will not be
seen in use, except by the wearer. It merely reflects social norms and
perceptions. Unfortunate though many of these may be.

If the underwear were designed.....and sized.....for adults, what you say
would be true and unarguable. In this case, yes, someone COULD argue that
it's a joke. Try telling jokes concerning adolscent girls in a similar
vein
at the next party you attend. Then come back and offer insights on social
norms.

On another note, could you ( or anybody) please explain why "bite me"
is considered offensive? I thought it was just some sort of throwaway
phrase, but obviously it is more than that.

It's generally considered to be a variation on "blow me," which I will
assume requires no further explanation.

Wolfgang

I don´t do jokes at parties any more, but thanks anyway Grandma.

You ARE a joke......the venue hardly matters.

And if your partying is limited these days, you should have plenty of time
to see if you can find someone to teach you how to use your computer.

Wolfgang

"Tim J." wrote in message
...

I would like anyone to tell me why, under *any* circumstances, it would be
deemed to be socially acceptable for a manufacturer or retailer to promote
the cash value of adolescent girls or boys sexual organs. I mean, I know
I'm the resident prude and all, but this is rather a sick portrayal of a
joke-for-profit scheme. Also interesting would be how many of those were
sold to parents who thought they were "cute."

See dicklet's posts on this matter. Wonder of wonders, he has, at long
last, offered some observations that merit consideration.*

Idiots. (© Wolfgang)

Actually, I stole that from a source I shall never reveal. I leave the
original author's identity as an exercise for our esteemed cadre of literary
sleuths.

Wolfgang
*who feels it should hardly be necessary to add that "consideration" is not
exactly synonymous with accepting a single word of it as necessarily being
true.

"Tim J." wrote in message
...
Mike typed:
Getting one´s knickers in a knot about something like this is more
likely to increase their sales anyway.

Not if they were forced to remove them from the shelves (which they were.)

Evidently not in southern Mississippi.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang typed:
"Tim J." wrote in message
...
snip

Idiots. (© Wolfgang)

Actually, I stole that from a source . . .

Wilhelm Reich?

. . . I shall never reveal.

Never mind.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

"Mike" wrote in message
...
On 13 Dec, 00:39, "Tim J." wrote:
Mike typed:

Getting one´s knickers in a knot about something like this is more
likely to increase their sales anyway.

Not if they were forced to remove them from the shelves (which they were.)

In order to change any of this, one would have to change people´s
conditioning and perceptions. That is most unlikely to occur.

It's even more unlikely if nobody calls attention to the problem.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------http://css.sbcma.com/timj

One or two points come to mind, although I can hardly believe I am
actually discussing adolescent girls panties on a fishing group, much
less thinking about various connotations.

I would assume that in the majority of cases, parents, (mainly
mothers) would buy such stuff for young girls.

These things are only actually a problem if somebody calls attention
to them, otherwise they are merely tasteless attempts at profiteering
humour.

Such things are only funny to some people because they reflect very
accurately what some believe, and what actually occurs in society.
So the real problem is not a silly joke on some panties, but what
occurs in society.

Removing the panties will not solve the problem, ( indeed it may well
exacerbate it! )

Even for ROFF, and even for you, this is an amazingly twisted abuse of what
can only laughingly be called logic.

Wolfgang

On 13 Dec, 15:38, "Wolfgang" wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message

...
On 13 Dec, 00:39, "Tim J." wrote:

Mike typed:

Getting one´s knickers in a knot about something like this is more
likely to increase their sales anyway.

Not if they were forced to remove them from the shelves (which they were..)

In order to change any of this, one would have to change people´s
conditioning and perceptions. That is most unlikely to occur.

It's even more unlikely if nobody calls attention to the problem.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------http://css.sbcma.com/timj

One or two points come to mind, although I can hardly believe I am
actually discussing adolescent girls panties on a fishing group, much
less thinking about various connotations.

I would assume that in the majority of cases, parents, (mainly
mothers) would buy such stuff for young girls.

These things are only actually a problem if somebody calls attention
to them, otherwise they are merely tasteless attempts at profiteering
humour.

Such things are only funny to some people because they reflect very
accurately what some believe, and what actually occurs in society.
So the real problem is not a silly joke on some panties, but what
occurs in society.

Removing the panties will not solve the problem, ( indeed it may well
exacerbate it! )

Even for ROFF, and even for you, this is an amazingly twisted abuse of what
can only laughingly be called logic.

Wolfgang

Yes Grandma, it was one of the jokes I don´t do at parties.

"Mike" wrote in message
...
On 13 Dec, 15:38, "Wolfgang" wrote:

Even for ROFF, and even for you, this is an amazingly twisted abuse of
what
can only laughingly be called logic.

Wolfgang

Yes Grandma, it was one of the jokes I don´t do at parties.

Devastating. Absolutely devastating.

Find someone to teach you how to use your computer.

Wolfgang
off to the races!

"Tim J." wrote in message
...
Wolfgang typed:
"Tim J." wrote in message
...
snip

Idiots. (© Wolfgang)

Actually, I stole that from a source . . .

Wilhelm Reich?

Dang! How do you do that? I thought this would take years.

. . . I shall never reveal.

Never mind.

Sure, NOW you say "never mind"!

Wolfgang
who is going to have to find some more obscure sources.