or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Young man...have you no shame?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Young man...have you no shame? - Page 2

post #16 of 60
Quote:
I live in Denmark, which is as free as it can get, and what really amazes me about american society is that a big issue is made of Janet Jackson´s nipples while a program like "Jackass" is broadcasted to teenagers without discussion.
I think that show is trash. Veritable trash. Nothing postmodernist about its intention either. Or so it is implied by all means. Nor does it have the somewhat legitimate political agenda disguised under things of dubious taste a la Marquis de Sade, Georges Bataille, et al. I sense some drama.
post #17 of 60
What the fcuk is going on in here? I do think the t-shirt is silly, and I definitely agree with what Chuck says about respect. Unfortunately, we human beings tend to concentrate on the little things, and not the huge issues at hand. I'm sure that, if governments paid as much frank attention to world-endangering problems as they do to what's playing on the airwaves, the world would be a much better place. As it is now, it is like how Jesus* told the Pharisees, to paraphrase, "You strain out the gnat yet gulp down the camel." In other words, people concentrate on the appearance, and not the bigger core. I remember what it was like to be a punk who'd do anything to shock people around me. I did so because I was poking fun at their orthodox lifestyle locked in routine, believing in a system that I considered completely faulty. It's really hilarious when you reach towards someone, pull his head out of that hole in the sand containing his perfect, sanitized version of reality, and shout in his ear while he takes a good look around "Welcome to the real world." And in a world in which values seem to have lost value, where trust can't be placed anywhere and the truth is ever more elusive to find, I find this reaction to be right on par. Cause and effect. Ergo, vis a vis, concordantly. PS. I used to tease the "Christian" kids at my school all the time, because they were tremendously two-faced. This isn't to say that all Christians are, because I knew a bunch of sincere ones that actually practiced what they preached. I think Steve went off on a tangent there probably out of disgust for a professed Christian country acting in a decidedly un-Christlike way. *I thought it would be appropriate given the direction this thread has taken.
post #18 of 60
I have a soft spot for lowbrow humor, be it presented with a serious intent of conveying a deeper underlying social and political meaning (Jonathan Swift) or if it's just for the sake of being over-the-top offensive (Eminem). However, I appreciate them differently and have the capacity to distinguish them and treat them appropriately. What I do detest is when people try to assume a deeper meaning where there is none (I _hate_ postmodernism) or when people try to be provocative but don't have the nerve to go all the way (FCUK). The slogans are catchy and somewhat interesting the first few times you see them, but they quickly give off the air of "trying to be bold and sassy in a half-assed, marginalized way." If I wanted to look like a rebel or draw shock value attention, I'd buy a cheap shirt from tshirthell.com or make my own over-the-top design. I'm not bothered by the shirts themselves (or similar "edgy." marketing campaigns, I just think they're lame and watered down. Not to insert myself in this flamewar, but I think the underlying theme is that people want to have control over others and their opinions and behavior. It's naive to say that anyone who had the power to do so would not. The use of evangelistic, emotionally-based messages and the demonizing of contrary opinions is a very powerful tool for those who desire to do so. Organized religion and grassroots political movements are perhaps the quintessential examples of this tool in action, and I think both a preachy Christian schoolteacher and Michael Moore fit right in. Everyone is affected by some form of this evangelism at some point, and in my opinion the best thing to do is to try stay detatched and skeptical and worry only about having control of your own self. Carlo and Steve, I have disagreements with each of your ideologies, but I respect your opinions, and I respect you as two of the most valuable sources of information on this forum. I take issue with the apparent notion that having conservative politcal views or rejecting religion instantly makes one deluded and/or evil. I'm not a relativist by any means, but I find it dangerous to immediately demonize anyone who does not share your mindset.
post #19 of 60
Quote:
I live in Denmark, which is as free as it can get, and what really amazes me about american society is that a big issue is made of Janet Jackson´s nipples while a program like "Jackass" is broadcasted to teenagers without discussion.
It wasn't only the fact that her nipple was exsposed that riled people it up. It was the venue, people don't and shouldn't expect that from the most watched event in the world.By comparison since people expect MTV to show events like that, there would have been no uproar about. Because people know what expect from them and choose what to watch accordingly
post #20 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
[Begin sarcasm] Ummm...weren't the Beatles and Elvis once considered vulgar too?  And how dare women show their KNEES on television (at least the Afganistan olympic runner had the deceny to wear pants).  What is our world coming to? The parents(1) who purchased these clothes must have been the same type who went to woodstock and followed the greatful dead.  They have definitely ruined this country over the last 40 years.  None of this would be an issue if their parents had simply raised them properly. [/End sarcasm here] There's no black or white - only shades of grey.  You can't draw a line if others disagree.  Personally, I think the use of FCUK is a great way to point out the ridiculous arbitrariness of the George Carlin's "7 Words".  I find it funny that on a board composed of ultra-Europhiles (clothes-wise) we remain so much more prude in every other sense. You do have a point about the fluorescent yellow color however. (1) I point out the HUGE assumption made here of the purchaser being parents...I reference recent NYT article on cash flow of people in the age bracket mentioned. /Token 25 year old on board
Wow... I went to sleep thinking that there were 7 views and no commenst and that this topic was one that was gonna just roll over and die.  4 hours later I see that its "spawned" rather than died.  I dont have the time to address all of the issues, and I by posting this "complaint" have already drawn my line. However someone please tell me where we do draw the line if at all or slowly but surely does the line erode entirely? Is the closing down of the "Opus and Anthony" show where they had on radio a man and a woman (how Passe) fornicating in St. Patricks cathedral also a sign of prudish overreaction or is that also just shades of Grey? I have this strange feeling that the Elders of years past (Stupid and Prudish as they may have been) that were shocked by the Beetles and  Elvis's behaviour and lyrics possibly foresaw the total erosion of any family values and in an attempt to prevent that began to draw a line.  Perhaps had we held that line a little longer we would not have (at least not for another few years) public procreation on prime time radio.  Moral erosion as with beach erosion happens one grain of sand at a time, not visibly en masse. I wrote previousely of an American tourist not being allowed into Buckingham palace by the guard on account of his wearing an offensive T-Shirt.  Said the guard, "This is a place of royalty.  You cannot enter here wearing that nor can you take it off and walk in".  The tourist couldnt understand what the guard meant and when realization dawned couldn't believe his ears.  Sadly, we have lost this sensitivity. For the most part, I agree with Chuck (Carlo) on this.  Perhaps its our upbringing and perhaps our kids that have gotten us to think this way, and perhaps those of you that disagree would think differently when you have impressionable children that age.  But its not just the children.  Its our own eroding moralities and what we deem as acceptable that need to be addresses as well.  Yes we procreate to live but we dont have to do it in public.  A teacher of mine once went into a house of a student and saw a popular book written by an unpopular fellow prominently displayed on his coffee table, and he said the following "Its like a toilet.  All houses have to have them but you dont have to have it in the living room" and the point he was making was valid and should be internalized.  Not everything that we do should be governed by this that we can do them. (Case in point, the Bubba confessions regarding Monica), and not everything that we can do and happen to do should be done in public.  Gratefully, public defecating while being a more natural and necessary bodily function is still considered socially improper.  How prudish.   I am troubled by the fact that drug's and sex is a topic that simply MUST be discussed with children ere they reach the double digit age.  Is that a sign of an advanced and progressive society or one of decadence and moral decay.  I think the latter. (PRUDE. ) Is the easily removable shirt a means of making a "bold" statement to your parents and friends?  If you really want to make a statement and are that confident of your current views go right out and get a tatoo that is permanent and in 2 weeks after the "shock" has worn off feel like a fool for the rest of your life. And I knew that my "HUGH" assumption about this purchase being financed by the parents was going to be commented on.  But I assure you that I am spot on with that.  The porsches and beemers they drive are also financed by the parents.  Maybe thats part of the problem. JJF PS:  Jon...You had enough... Its FIH, not FIT
post #21 of 60
Quote:
And for the record, I agree that FCUK as a slogan is silly and played out.  Which is why I laugh, rather than be offended, when I see someone wearing it.
I probably would have laughed about it at age 25 too, but being the father of a young daughter has changed my perspective on things quite a bit, and my reaction is much the same as Carlo's.
post #22 of 60
I am not being sarcastic when I say I have something no one on this forum has, Romanian parent-in-laws, and should my child develop even a hint of this attitude, he will get a one-way ticket to the in-laws in Bucharest until the problem is solved, knowing the Admiral (literally), probably about a week later.
post #23 of 60
Quote:
I've seen that clothing too and it's really vulgar and witless. Such a lack of imagination. I wasn't shocked as much as moved to pity the poor kids who must have thought this was a good idea. I'm not necessarily offended by the profanity, but if you're going to use the word f**k do it with some confidence, authority, and panache. And do it well: FCUK to live...Live to FCUK? Please don't torture me this way.
I agree entirely with this.  I'm appalled not so much by the message, but by the banality and lack of imagination.   As for the Christian schools (I went throught the Catholic school system, and I have a balanced perspective on it ) - my personal opinion is that a little discipline and instruction on the need to respect others, never hurt anyone. I am a little concerned about indoctrinating children in any particular creed and code (although most people take cult with enough of a grain of salt these days, and so is fine, as far I'm concerned) at such a young age. BTW, I'm going to be stepdad to a 6 year old son very soon, so I understand you Chuck. All of you guys, please stop the bickering.
post #24 of 60
My .02 - and with no desire to restart the flames. It seems that the board most often goes down in flames when a poster makes a post about something that offends their moral sensibilities (viz. jerry's friend, this post) with the underlying assumption that the rest of the board will agree with them. The funny thing about these virtual communities is - to quote someone in a different thread - while we may share many interests and, I would argue, respect and enjoy learning from each other in a narrow field we are not 'friends'. This is an important distinction - your friends will often share your views and, if they don't, are likely to react fairly gently if you sound off. They'll agree to disagree or, if they feel it is crucial, argue the point with as much equanimity as they can muster. This group is held together by something a bit more tenuous, and it is fairly easy to push a lot of buttons very quickly. Posting about your frustrations with bad service at Nordstrom is likely to get lots of sympathetic feedback. Posting about the decline of American morality is almost surely going to get someone riled up. There are other boards for that. There appear to be some camps in these debates - possibly a PM is in order when you are scandalized by risque behavior. Or a phone call. But it doesn't make sense to post something about your attitude towards right and wrong and then act shocked when someone attacks it. These are closely-held beliefs and, to be honest, I don't think that we've shared enough experience to earn the right to preach to one another.
post #25 of 60
I'll agree that people have a right to expect their children not to be exposed to such vulgarities. But, what about when they get older and see these words in literature later on. There's been a disturbing trend where books like Catcher in the Rye for its swear words and The Chocolate War with its one reference to masturbation are getting banned by parents with concerns similar to yours.
post #26 of 60
I think the thread subtitle sums it up fairly well. We grow old and we forget what it's like to be young and searching for identity, rebelling against the conventions and rigid (or so we think) moral codes of our institutions and protectors. As a 15 yr. old, I sported a bright yellow tee shirt with the word "F--K" (I see no need to provoke those here who might be less comfortable with the word--we both know it, and even use it on occasion at appropriate moments, at least I do) emblazoned in red on the front. I should point out this item was worn primarily within the confines of a "progressive" private school 30 yrs. ago (a Quaker institution no less--no, I'm not a Quaker) on only several occasions. On one such occasion it was  requested that I remove said garment when seen sporting it in the lunch room. This request was made by the "Man" himself, aka the headmaster. Oh, the injustice of being forced to conform to the dull ethical codes of the day; the repression of my innermost personal expression. At any rate, for pure shock value I think my shirt was more effective and direct than the shirt in question here. I also agree with others that the shirt does seem to lack wit and eschews originality by virtue of the fact that many other "upstarts" may indeed be sporting it, thus blunting their attempt at individuality. Either way, at this point in my life I would not recommend the wearing of either garment by anyone in any setting, as I would find them either a) offensive or b) banal and/or foolish. But then I am no longer young and in search of personal expression, or seeking to elicit shock or outrage from my elders. Kids will be kids.
post #27 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
My .02 - and with no desire to restart the flames. It seems that the board most often goes down in flames when a poster makes a post about something that offends their moral sensibilities (viz. jerry's friend, this post) with the underlying assumption that the rest of the board will agree with them. The funny thing about these virtual communities is - to quote someone in a different thread - while we may share many interests and, I would argue, respect and enjoy learning from each other in a narrow field we are not 'friends'. This is an important distinction - your friends will often share your views and, if they don't, are likely to react fairly gently if you sound off.  They'll agree to disagree or, if they feel it is crucial, argue the point with as much equanimity as they can muster. This group is held together by something a bit more tenuous, and it is fairly easy to push a lot of buttons very quickly.   Posting about your frustrations with bad service at Nordstrom is likely to get lots of sympathetic feedback.  Posting about the decline of American morality is almost surely going to get someone riled up.  There are other boards for that. There appear to be some camps in these debates - possibly a PM is in order when you are scandalized by risque behavior. Or a phone call.  But it doesn't make sense to post something about your attitude towards right and wrong and then act shocked when someone attacks it.  These are closely-held beliefs and, to be honest, I don't think that we've shared enough experience to earn the right to preach to one another.
Duveen: Well said. Perhaps I owe an apology for posting this thread in this topic, and I only did so because from what I have seen thus far there is an entire "fashion" company that appeals to individuals based on its risque factor. Individuality is one thing, institutionalization another entirely. More can be said here and we can go back and forth forever, however I do agree that enough or more than enough has already been said. We agree to disagree. In morals as in fashion, my standards are not necessarily yours and vice versa. I certainly did not mean to start a flame war and I think that the late hour and particular night (sat night, a few bears in the belly etc) may have contributed to the passion of this thread. Rergardless, apologies are in order, and I offer them. Perhaps J can set up a "Prudish old Fart" Category Cheers all, JJF
post #28 of 60
Me I have no problem with religious people but when they start to advocate that the moral standard of society should be set according to their beliefs and "sense of decency" that really pisses me off. Dudes we're talking about a freaking shirt here, if some kid wants to walk around town with a shirt that says FCUK this FCUK that, or live to FCUK or whatever then it should be his basic right to do so. You Americans with all the censorship on tv, videogames, CDs and what not are heading in the direction of a fundamentalist right-wing/Christian state. I don't want to offend anyone but despite all the censorship and the efforts of Christian conservatives to uphold the "American decency" your countrys moral standars are still going down the drain; violent crimes, abortion rates, teen pregnancies and so on the list is endless.   Here in Sweden we have a liberal outlook we value freedom and each individuals right to choose, whether it's the right to have an abortion or the right to wear a shirt that says "I don't give a Fcuk about your religious beliefs". Abortion rates are among the lowest in Europe same goes for teen pregnancies, maybe that's because here in Sweden parents don't go out of their way to discourage teenagers from having sex but rather educate them on the merits of having safe sex.  Your kid won't die of hearing the word "Fuck" on tv, just teach them it's an inappropriate word to use in most contexts.  Your teenage girl won't die of having sex either, talk to her make her understand that she should have sex when she truly feels ready and not to just please her boyfriend and make her understand the importance of having safe sex... America seriously needs to take a dozen or so chill pills, we could export some made in Sweden pills to you in exchange for some of that Texas oil.
post #29 of 60
Duveen-- I couldn't agree more with your assessment in general, though I think it is precisely the fact that we are more or less strangers with a common 'thread' (pun intended, on numerous levels) that makes this sort of engagement so entertaining and/or frustrating. Our attempts to impress our will upon others, to reflect inwardly on what our core values and beliefs may be and then express them outwardly serve as a lightening rod for self-validation and the desire of recognition (let's face it, most of us like it when someone says ""well done" or "well said", especially when it's coming from someone whose opinion we respect). But yes, I suppose it's no longer about the clothes...
post #30 of 60
Valmont (and others) Sorry but I believe you are mixing up personal freedom and manners. Personal freedom allows a person to do, think, say anything that will have consequences on no others than the subject. Manners come into the picture when we have to interact with other individuals and they are a code which is necessary to prevent people from disturbing each other. They are the base of civilized co-existence. I will always stand for personal freedom (speech, religion, abortion and so on). I will always despise bad manners. If two adults decide to make a home-porn and a third adult decides to buy it, I see nothing bad in it. If someone tells teenagers (who do not have a fully developed capability of judgement) that is not only acceptable, but even cool to walk around with a shirt which can result offensive for other persons, or that is ok to pee on the wall of hotel rooms or puke on each other (seen on MTV), or treat all women like dogs (nearly any rap song), then I think there is something wrong. PS: In Denmark we think to Sweden as a very puritan and oppressive country. So everything iin life is relative, as you can see.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Young man...have you no shame?