Daisey Dukes Summer and Lunch

[Geoff Rove]

Enjoyed all the varieties of short shorts this summer but jean cutoffs are the finest in fashion. I reciprocated by many days of tank topping in white, blue,green and what a semiconductor salesman called "mental hospital green" with Hawaiian motif.

Lunch today was tuna mixed with 1000 islands dressing and curry spice on sour dough.

[GM]

jgro...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Enjoyed all the varieties of short shorts this summer but jean cutoffs are the finest in fashion. I reciprocated by many days of tank topping in white, blue,green and what a semiconductor salesman called "mental hospital green" with Hawaiian motif.
>
> Lunch today was tuna mixed with 1000 islands dressing and curry spice on sour dough.

A lot of these young gals have *really* short shorts, sheesh...then they have the noive to
complain about "sexual harassment", being "objectified", and such like...

Girls, try to show a bit of dignity, the street is not a strip club...

--
GM

[Michael Trew]

Yes, I agree. Sexual harassment isn't OK on any level, but if you dress
with shorts so short that the lower part of your rear end is visible,
you clearly are expecting to attract some kind of attention or
objectification. People just have no decency in dressing in public any
more. Shorts/skirts "fingertip length" with hands down at sides was the
rule in school, and that ought to apply elsewhere.

[Cindy Hamilton]

Who's going to enforce that rule "elsewhere"?

Cindy Hamilton

[Bruce 3.2]

.
Maybe there are a few Taliban among the Afghan refugees?

[Cindy Hamilton]

I'm just hoping there's someone who wants to open a nice Afghan restaurant
here. We had one in the early 1980s, but it was a little ahead of its time and
failed after a couple of years.

Cindy Hamilton

[GM]

We had one in the 80's - 90's, called "The Helmand", it was a good place...the owners
had escaped after the 1979 Soviet invasion...

"some things never change..."

--
GM

[Geoff Rove]

The personalities of young ladies ranges from lacrosse playah to socialy distant free spirit flirt.
Lacrossers in black yoga pants and strapped halters can shame and scorn.

[Bruce 3.2]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 11:39:48 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton

The Taliban have decided that women who study at university can
continue to do so if these rules are applied:
1. Women study separately from men.
2. Women have female teachers.
3. If no female teacher is available, a male teacher can do it, but he
must be standing behind a curtain.

[odlayo]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 1:48:31 PM UTC-5, GM wrote:

> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > I'm just hoping there's someone who wants to open a nice Afghan restaurant
> > here. We had one in the early 1980s, but it was a little ahead of its time and
> > failed after a couple of years.
> We had one in the 80's - 90's, called "The Helmand", it was a good place...the owners
> had escaped after the 1979 Soviet invasion...

The Helmand was run by a brother of Hamid Karzai, former president of Afghanistan. He was assassinated by the Taliban when he returned to Afghanistan.

[Geoff Rove]

Grubhub slow in Kabul?

[Geoff Rove]

I seen that movie on Showtime after Dark.

[Bruce 3.2]

.
Lol. I saw the scene in "Afghanistan, The Twilight Zone".
.
(I didn't make rule 3 up, by the way.)

[Bruce 3.2]

On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 7:53:10 PM UTC-5, jgro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Enjoyed all the varieties of short shorts this summer but jean cutoffs are the finest in fashion. I reciprocated by many days of tank topping in white, blue,green and what a semiconductor salesman called "mental hospital green" with Hawaiian motif.
>
> Lunch today was tuna mixed with 1000 islands dressing and curry spice on sour dough.

https://youtu.be/1Y9_LJj7A68

Megyn Kelly: "Mr Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don't use a politicians filter. However that is not without its downsides. In particular, when it comes to women. You've called women you don't like fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals. Your twitter account..."

Trump Interrupts: "Only Rosie O'Donnell."

[Michael Trew]

I didn't mean as much have someone "enforce" it.. that's an infringement
on rights, as long as you are "decent".. well I guess that's up for
interpretation also. It's the mindset that people should dress in a
respectful way that seems to be lost.

Here are two example pictures below, from NYC in the 1950's.
Specifically how the women are dressed in photo number two. Any y'all
wonder why I can't quit mentioning the mid century. People presented
themselves far better than today.

https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/mid-town-1950s-3.jpg

https://www.creativeboom.com/uploads/articles/3b/3b69ecb97e8978d7e371a7fae3a205c0ae21e839_810.jpg

My point being, you didn't see people dressed like animals years ago.
People just knew not to do that, no one had to "enforce" it, perhaps
aside from parents.

[Bruce 3.2]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 00:14:16 -0400, Michael Trew
<michae...@att.net> wrote:

>On 9/13/2021 1:06 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 12:32:13 PM UTC-4, Michael Trew wrote:
>>> On 9/12/2021 9:07 PM, GM wrote:
>>>> jgro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Enjoyed all the varieties of short shorts this summer but jean cutoffs are the finest in fashion. I reciprocated by many days of tank topping in white, blue,green and what a semiconductor salesman called "mental hospital green" with Hawaiian motif.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lunch today was tuna mixed with 1000 islands dressing and curry spice on sour dough.
>>>>
>>>> A lot of these young gals have *really* short shorts, sheesh...then they have the noive to
>>>> complain about "sexual harassment", being "objectified", and such like...
>>>>
>>>> Girls, try to show a bit of dignity, the street is not a strip club...
>>> Yes, I agree. Sexual harassment isn't OK on any level, but if you dress
>>> with shorts so short that the lower part of your rear end is visible,
>>> you clearly are expecting to attract some kind of attention or
>>> objectification. People just have no decency in dressing in public any
>>> more. Shorts/skirts "fingertip length" with hands down at sides was the
>>> rule in school, and that ought to apply elsewhere.
>>
>> Who's going to enforce that rule "elsewhere"?
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
>I didn't mean as much have someone "enforce" it.. that's an infringement
>on rights, as long as you are "decent".. well I guess that's up for
>interpretation also. It's the mindset that people should dress in a
>respectful way that seems to be lost.

But the definition of respectful changes over time, and you seem to
stay behind.

>Here are two example pictures below, from NYC in the 1950's.
>Specifically how the women are dressed in photo number two. Any y'all
>wonder why I can't quit mentioning the mid century. People presented
>themselves far better than today.
>
>https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/mid-town-1950s-3.jpg

What's with the ties? Wearing a tie means that establishment has you
on a leash.

[Cindy Hamilton]

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 12:14:23 AM UTC-4, Michael Trew wrote:
> On 9/13/2021 1:06 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 12:32:13 PM UTC-4, Michael Trew wrote:
> >> On 9/12/2021 9:07 PM, GM wrote:
> >>> jgro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Enjoyed all the varieties of short shorts this summer but jean cutoffs are the finest in fashion. I reciprocated by many days of tank topping in white, blue,green and what a semiconductor salesman called "mental hospital green" with Hawaiian motif.
> >>>>
> >>>> Lunch today was tuna mixed with 1000 islands dressing and curry spice on sour dough.
> >>>
> >>> A lot of these young gals have *really* short shorts, sheesh...then they have the noive to
> >>> complain about "sexual harassment", being "objectified", and such like...
> >>>
> >>> Girls, try to show a bit of dignity, the street is not a strip club...
> >> Yes, I agree. Sexual harassment isn't OK on any level, but if you dress
> >> with shorts so short that the lower part of your rear end is visible,
> >> you clearly are expecting to attract some kind of attention or
> >> objectification. People just have no decency in dressing in public any
> >> more. Shorts/skirts "fingertip length" with hands down at sides was the
> >> rule in school, and that ought to apply elsewhere.
> >
> > Who's going to enforce that rule "elsewhere"?
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
> I didn't mean as much have someone "enforce" it.. that's an infringement
> on rights, as long as you are "decent".. well I guess that's up for
> interpretation also.

Decent pretty much means genitals and breasts are covered, at
least in the U.S.

> It's the mindset that people should dress in a
> respectful way that seems to be lost.
>
> Here are two example pictures below, from NYC in the 1950's.
> Specifically how the women are dressed in photo number two. Any y'all
> wonder why I can't quit mentioning the mid century. People presented
> themselves far better than today.

I think we all know how people dressed in the 1950s.

It was a much more conformist time. People were afraid not to
fit in.

> https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/mid-town-1950s-3.jpg
>
> https://www.creativeboom.com/uploads/articles/3b/3b69ecb97e8978d7e371a7fae3a205c0ae21e839_810.jpg
>
> My point being, you didn't see people dressed like animals years ago.
> People just knew not to do that, no one had to "enforce" it, perhaps
> aside from parents.

Animals don't wear clothing unless humans put it on them.

People have always dressed to seduce.

There's no going back. You're just going to have to get used to
tube tops and tramp stamps.

Cindy Hamilton

[Bruce 3.2]

The 50s were a repressed, intolerant, religiously hysterical era. I
don't know why anyone would want to go back there.

[Janet]

In article <shp7ip$umd$1...@dont-email.me>, michae...@att.net says...

> My point being, you didn't see people dressed like animals years ago.
> People just knew not to do that, no one had to "enforce" it, perhaps
> aside from parents.

Another example of your blind ignorance about social pressures
in the 1950's.

Janet UK

[bruce bowser]

They probably WANT to be able to dress to seduce when ever they want to, yes. But not everyone actually does that. And even so, if you were to ask them why, they'd probably pretend that they didn't know what you were talking about.

[Bryan Simmons]

I LOVE the really short short shorts. You guys are both gay.
I love yoga pants too.
>
> --
> GM

--Bryan

[Bryan Simmons]

What some guy who is obsessed with obsolete things thinks is "decent,"
means nothing.

--Bryan

[Bryan Simmons]

Most folks who think like Michael are dying off.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

--Bryan

[Bryan Simmons]

On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 7:53:10 PM UTC-5, jgro...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Enjoyed all the varieties of short shorts this summer but jean cutoffs are the finest in fashion.
>

When I see the word Duke, it reminds me of the funny, fake romance
novel title I thought up, *Duked by an Earl*.

--Bryan

[Hank Rogers]

Is that something you and kuth did on one of your naked canoe trips?

[Bryan Simmons]

Dude, get it through your head. I'm a nudist. OF COURSE I don't wear
clothes to swim. We had one trip to a creek where we were (clothed) in
our own kayaks, but then stripped to swim, which is normal for me, and
he doesn't trip on it either. You want it to be a big deal. You think it's
funny. I think the fact that most people wear swimsuits when they're
with friends and family at a creek with no one else around makes them
seem like they have psychological problems.

Kuthe is one of OVER A THOUSAND persons I've been around while we
were both nude. Quit acting like a junior high boy, "Huh, huh, naked."
If you've never been to a beach where you're allowed to be nude, and
experienced the feeling--and I'm talking the physical feeling--of being
completely nude with the sun and water and wind on your body, it's you
who's missing out. It's not about being communally nude as much as
being nude oneself.

One time, about 25-30 years ago, my wife and I and her parents went
out to this creek, and I hiked downstream to find a swimming hole
(her parents aren't nudist). On the hike downstream there was a cattle
pasture, but on the way back the cattle had wandered out into the
stream, and a couple of them were longhorn bulls. I had no way back
other than to walk past the cattle, and it was scary. I hoped that if I
didn't make eye contact, that they wouldn't charge and gore me, and
luckily they didn't.

--Bryan

[jmcquown]

On 9/13/2021 12:32 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
> On 9/12/2021 9:07 PM, GM wrote:
>>   jgro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Enjoyed all the varieties of short shorts this summer but jean
>>> cutoffs are the finest in fashion.

(snipped)

Cut offs are fine. Be careful with the scizzors, though. Stick with
what is currently in style. That ain't Daisy Dukes.

>>>
>>> Lunch today was tuna mixed with 1000 islands dressing and curry spice
>>> on sour dough.

Food related. Heh.

>> A lot of these young gals have *really* short shorts, sheesh...then
>> they have the noive to
>> complain about "sexual harassment",  being "objectified", and such
>> like...
>>
>> Girls, try to show a bit of dignity, the street is not a strip club...
>

I haven't seen anyone wearing "Daisy Dukes" since around 2005, 2006.
That was shortly after a movie about the Dukes of Hazzard TV show was
released. The original term came from the television show in the
1980's. Then again, I don't know what kind of neighborhoods you're
seeing these "girls" in. I go to a number of stores, I don't see anyone
of any age wearing "Daisy Dukes".

> Yes, I agree.  Sexual harassment isn't OK on any level, but if you dress
> with shorts so short that the lower part of your rear end is visible,
> you clearly are expecting to attract some kind of attention or
> objectification.  People just have no decency in dressing in public any
> more.  Shorts/skirts "fingertip length" with hands down at sides was the
> rule in school, and that ought to apply elsewhere.

If you've got school uniforms with guidelines that's one thing.
Otherwise no one can dictate what is considered fashionable by teenagers
or anyone else, worn in public. It's impossible.

Heck, when I was a teen in the 1970's I went to school wearing tank-tops
and halter tops, no bra, and hip-hugger bell bottom jeans. (No shorts
were allowed in schools and no, the jeans weren't so low cut they showed
my butt crack but you could see my belly button! Oh my.) Mom shopped
for my clothes. It was the style in those days. On the rare occasions
I wore dresses to school they were also short. No, not showing my butt
cheeks, but short. (Note: my mother was 45 years old in 1971 and *she*
wore mini skirts and skorts. It is what the stores were selling and she
was still a young woman.)

Fashion styles tend to run in about 20 year cycles. You can surely
imagine how the elder Edwardians reacted when the 1920's rolled their
eyes about women losing their corsets, shortening their hemlines,
showing their legs and OMG, cutting their hair! LOL

I'm not saying I think young women or teens should dress like sluts. But
by your standards I probably did, given what I wore to public school in
the early 1970's. It was only a couple of years into High School the
hemlines for dresses got longer again. I'm simply saying, there's no
way to mandate a public dress code.

They'll likely grow out of it when the fashion rags tell them the style
has changed. Either that, or they're simply sluts trying to ply a
trade. GM lives in Chicago so... maybe.

Get back to us when your daughter is 12 or 13 and wants some new
clothes... ;)

Jill

[Bryan Simmons]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOZPBUu7Fro
>
> Jill

--Bryan

[jmcquown]

I, for one, don't want to go back to wearing poofy skirts. ;)

Jill

[Hank Rogers]

At your age, few would want to see you in any type of skirt.

Stick to moo moos and keep that old shit covered up.

[Michael Trew]

On 9/14/2021 7:21 PM, Bryan Simmons wrote:
> Quit acting like a junior high boy, "Huh, huh, naked."

I read that in a Beavis or Butt head voice..

[Michael Trew]

On 9/14/2021 5:06 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 12:14:23 AM UTC-4, Michael Trew wrote:
>> I didn't mean as much have someone "enforce" it.. that's an infringement
>> on rights, as long as you are "decent".. well I guess that's up for
>> interpretation also.
>
> Decent pretty much means genitals and breasts are covered, at
> least in the U.S.
>
>> It's the mindset that people should dress in a
>> respectful way that seems to be lost.
>>
>> Here are two example pictures below, from NYC in the 1950's.
>> Specifically how the women are dressed in photo number two. Any y'all
>> wonder why I can't quit mentioning the mid century. People presented
>> themselves far better than today.
>
> I think we all know how people dressed in the 1950s.
>
> It was a much more conformist time. People were afraid not to
> fit in.

If that's the explanation, than I'd say we are in the same boat today,
with people having to fit in with overly casual clothes. People stare
at me when I wear my going out clothes, usually decent shoes, a button
down long sleeve shirt, and a straw fedora in warmer weather -- even
though that's far dressed down from the men in my first picture. I
sometimes get compliments, but typically more blank stares.

>> https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/mid-town-1950s-3.jpg
>>
>> https://www.creativeboom.com/uploads/articles/3b/3b69ecb97e8978d7e371a7fae3a205c0ae21e839_810.jpg
>>
>> My point being, you didn't see people dressed like animals years ago.
>> People just knew not to do that, no one had to "enforce" it, perhaps
>> aside from parents.
>
> Animals don't wear clothing unless humans put it on them.

Don't be pedantic.. you know that I was making a metaphoric reference.

> People have always dressed to seduce.
>
> There's no going back. You're just going to have to get used to
> tube tops and tramp stamps.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

Get used to it; highly unlikely. I have excepted that it's the new
reality, and it's unlikely to change, except for the worse. I'll just
complain about it forever, and try to avoid people that dress like they
are "going to Walmart".

[Michael Trew]

Isn't that the unfortunate truth.. hopefully there will still be a few
left in a few decades so I still have someone to talk to.

[Michael Trew]

That's a shame! I need to find a town where everyone's required to
dress like that. I'll start packing when I find one.. ;)

[Michael Trew]

On 9/14/2021 9:32 AM, Janet wrote:

I'd be much happier with those social pressures, as opposed to the
social pressures of today where if you don't support looting and burning
buildings (the US capitol included), you are an outcast.

[Bruce 3.2]

Get real. Looters and all those types are scum, regardless which
country they're from. They're not the norm. You're just playing the
victim now :)

[Michael Trew]

On 9/14/2021 8:12 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 9/13/2021 12:32 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
>> Yes, I agree. Sexual harassment isn't OK on any level, but if you
>> dress with shorts so short that the lower part of your rear end is
>> visible, you clearly are expecting to attract some kind of attention
>> or objectification. People just have no decency in dressing in public
>> any more. Shorts/skirts "fingertip length" with hands down at sides
>> was the rule in school, and that ought to apply elsewhere.
>
> If you've got school uniforms with guidelines that's one thing.
> Otherwise no one can dictate what is considered fashionable by teenagers
> or anyone else, worn in public. It's impossible.
>
> Heck, when I was a teen in the 1970's I went to school wearing tank-tops
> and halter tops, no bra, and hip-hugger bell bottom jeans. (No shorts
> were allowed in schools and no, the jeans weren't so low cut they showed
> my butt crack but you could see my belly button! Oh my.) Mom shopped for
> my clothes. It was the style in those days. On the rare occasions I wore
> dresses to school they were also short. No, not showing my butt cheeks,
> but short. (Note: my mother was 45 years old in 1971 and *she* wore mini
> skirts and skorts. It is what the stores were selling and she was still
> a young woman.)
>
> Fashion styles tend to run in about 20 year cycles. You can surely
> imagine how the elder Edwardians reacted when the 1920's rolled their
> eyes about women losing their corsets, shortening their hemlines,
> showing their legs and OMG, cutting their hair! LOL

Well, more like ankles, but yes, as I've read, when the bobbed cut came
out in the 20's, it was a huge rebellion for younger women to chop their
hair off.

> I'm not saying I think young women or teens should dress like sluts. But
> by your standards I probably did, given what I wore to public school in
> the early 1970's. It was only a couple of years into High School the
> hemlines for dresses got longer again. I'm simply saying, there's no way
> to mandate a public dress code.

I never said a public dress code, but simply a public with the mindset
to dress more conservatively. Well, since you opened the door to my
opinion.. no, my standards aren't that tight. I mean, that's a lot of
shoulder, but not the end of the world. I do still see the "daisy duke"
style .. I'm pretty sure those women just want people to gawk at them.

> They'll likely grow out of it when the fashion rags tell them the style
> has changed. Either that, or they're simply sluts trying to ply a trade.
> GM lives in Chicago so... maybe.
>
> Get back to us when your daughter is 12 or 13 and wants some new
> clothes... ;)
>
> Jill

I'm hoping to instill some decency into her. I won't be overbearing, as
long as she doesn't expect to wear shorts that leave nothing to the
imagination. Attempting to be controlling at that age any beyond is
foolish.. all you'll do is make a rebellious child rebel more.

I don't expect her to like what I like, but I'm still amused at dressing
her in old outfits, before she is old enough to care. For instance,
this mid-century (or possibly older) dress. She's rather petite, so old
clothes like this fit well on her. Don't mind my feeble attempt at
doing her hair.

https://postimg.cc/dLjVkVvk

[Michael Trew]

That's a good song! It came to my mind immediately when Jill mentioned
"mini skirts", but I didn't post it.

[Mike Duffy]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 01:24:53 -0400, Michael Trew wrote:

> That's a shame! I need to find a town where everyone's required to
> dress like that. I'll start packing when I find one.. ;)

What? A poofy skirt?

[Bryan Simmons]

You need to move to a country where they wear bourkas.

--Bryan

[Bryan Simmons]

My wife is 56, and her legs and butt are lovely. I'm very lucky. We're
on vacation together for the next 12 days. 24 hours from now we'll
be in a restored historical hotel.
https://www.hotelbothwell.com/

--Bryan

[Ophelia]

On 15/09/2021 06:42, Michael Trew wrote:
> daisy duke

Is that a pic of your daughter? Aww it won't open for me.

[Bruce 3.2]

I've always thought that conservative, religious Americans and
conservative Arabs have a lot in common: male supremacists, anti-gay,
intolerant, pro death penalty, religious hysteria, etc. Humans at
their worst.

[Ophelia]

On 15/09/2021 06:42, Michael Trew wrote:

====

Is that a picture of your daughter? It won't open for me:((

[Janet]

In article <shs059$g5b$4...@dont-email.me>, michae...@att.net says...

>
> On 9/14/2021 9:32 AM, Janet wrote:
> > In article<shp7ip$umd$1...@dont-email.me>, michae...@att.net says...
> >
> >> My point being, you didn't see people dressed like animals years ago.
> >> People just knew not to do that, no one had to "enforce" it, perhaps
> >> aside from parents.
> >
> > Another example of your blind ignorance about social pressures
> > in the 1950's.
> >
> > Janet UK
>
> I'd be much happier with those social pressures,

Really?

In the 1950's your ex-girlfriend would have faced social disgrace
and humiliation as an unmarried teenage mother. Your daughter would be
called illegitimate (by polite people) and a bastard by others.You'd be
pressured to marry to save GF, her family and your child from the shame;
and stick out that unwanted marriage however miserable because divorce
was also disapproved of.

If you didn't "do the decent thing", GF's parents might throw her
out, or take the horrible risks of an illegal abortion. Many unmarried
mothers had to give up the child for adoption. Little chance of a
private church school admitting your daughter back then; the other
parents might object to their child mixing with her.

That's the reality of that "respectful" society back then.

Janet UK

[Bruce 3.2]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 12:08:16 +0100, Janet <nob...@home.com> wrote:

>In article <shs059$g5b$4...@dont-email.me>, michae...@att.net says...
>>
>> On 9/14/2021 9:32 AM, Janet wrote:

>> > Another example of your blind ignorance about social pressures
>> > in the 1950's.
>> >

>> I'd be much happier with those social pressures,
>
> Really?
>
> In the 1950's your ex-girlfriend would have faced social disgrace
>and humiliation as an unmarried teenage mother. Your daughter would be
>called illegitimate (by polite people) and a bastard by others.You'd be
>pressured to marry to save GF, her family and your child from the shame;
>and stick out that unwanted marriage however miserable because divorce
>was also disapproved of.
>
> If you didn't "do the decent thing", GF's parents might throw her
>out, or take the horrible risks of an illegal abortion. Many unmarried
>mothers had to give up the child for adoption. Little chance of a
>private church school admitting your daughter back then; the other
>parents might object to their child mixing with her.
>
> That's the reality of that "respectful" society back then.

Bingo, touché, bull's eye!

[Bryan Simmons]

Guys who think that way should at least be honest and admit that
they are male supremacists.
>
> Janet UK

--Bryan

[Bryan Simmons]

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 9:26:31 PM UTC-5, Hank Rogers wrote:

https://www.hellomagazine.com/fashion/celebrity-style/20210912121517/christie-brinkley-leggy-little-black-dress-twist/
Most of the guys here don't seem to like women's bodies anywhere near
as much as I do, but I'm used to that. It was even that way when I was
young.

--Bryan

[Gary]

Probably based on the old popular song, "Duke of Earl"
I had that on 45rmp once. You were just a baby then.

[Ed Pawlowski]

When we were young and naive, the sister of one of our friends had a
baby about five months after she was married. His mother said the first
baby is often premature. We accepted that medical fact.

[Dave Smith]

Sad but true. I knew several girls who disappeared from school for a
while to stay with and aunt in another city.

[Graham]

and they try to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

[Graham]

Not just the 50s but the 60s too!

[Dave Smith]

My oldest niece was about a month and a half premature too. The next
oldest was another story. My wife told me about meeting her brother's
girlfriend. They showed the family a bunch of photos.... this is the
gang at the ski hill..... this is us at the lodge.... this is us at the
top of the slope...... this is our daughter. No one had known anything
about it. This was about 1966-67. She was a recent arrival from Austria,
went through pregnancy on her own with no family in the country and few
friends.

[Dave Smith]

In my second year at university I took a bird course in sociology,
Social Deviance AKA Nuts and Sluts. One of our multiple choice
questions was about the number of women in the world who faced the
problem of premarital pregnancy. The first three choices were 10, 100
and 1,000. I figured I knew at least 10, so I went for the far end of
the scale.

[bruce bowser]

Growing up in war-time Europe that's how it was sometimes, too.

[bruce bowser]

Especially if you're a kid and your family was killed.

[Michael Trew]

That's the first thing that came to my mind, but I try to withhold
constant song references for the sake of retaining some group sanity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkwM3GLW8BQ

[Michael Trew]

Gross... no thanks, I don't like people that blow up people that they
don't agree with.

[Michael Trew]

On 9/15/2021 7:08 AM, Janet wrote:
> In article<shs059$g5b$4...@dont-email.me>, michae...@att.net says...

Most of that is very unfortunate. You don't need to remind me, I'm well
aware that I'm hypocritical on this level, and I admit it. There is
nothing more than I can do at this point to correct that, as I've
mentioned, it is what it is now.

That being said, when these social pressures were relaxed starting in
the 60's, did you see what happened? Coupled with the ease of getting
government benefits to live off of the state without male support,
marriage rates went through the floor. The traditional family is now
dying. Children without fathers are becoming more and more prevalent.
Our mental health as a society has drastically declined, and anyone that
can't correlate the two is very blind and naive.

[Michael Trew]

I'm not sure why it won't open, the link works on my end. Yes, it's a
shot from behind (not face) wearing an ancient dress that I found at the
antique mall.

[Bruce 3.2]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 13:14:35 -0400, Michael Trew
<michae...@att.net> wrote:

>Most of that is very unfortunate. You don't need to remind me, I'm well
>aware that I'm hypocritical on this level, and I admit it. There is
>nothing more than I can do at this point to correct that, as I've
>mentioned, it is what it is now.
>
>That being said, when these social pressures were relaxed starting in
>the 60's, did you see what happened? Coupled with the ease of getting
>government benefits to live off of the state without male support,
>marriage rates went through the floor. The traditional family is now
>dying. Children without fathers are becoming more and more prevalent.
>Our mental health as a society has drastically declined, and anyone that
>can't correlate the two is very blind and naive.

I think it doesn't matter in what kind of context a child is raised:
traditional family, 2 mothers, 2 fathers etc, as long as it's safe and
stable.

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 12:17:52 PM UTC-5, Michael Trew wrote:
>
> On 9/15/2021 6:30 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> >
> > Is that a picture of your daughter? It won't open for me:((
> >

(I snip a GIANT pile of irrelevant comments.)

> >
> I'm not sure why it won't open, the link works on my end. Yes, it's a
> shot from behind (not face) wearing an ancient dress that I found at the
> antique mall.
>

It opened fine for me, too. The problem is OhFeelMe.

[jmcquown]

On 9/15/2021 1:24 AM, Michael Trew wrote:

> On 9/14/2021 8:39 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 9/14/2021 9:32 AM, Janet wrote:
>>> In article <shp7ip$umd$1...@dont-email.me>, michae...@att.net says...
>>>
>>>
>>>> My point being, you didn't see people dressed like animals years ago.
>>>> People just knew not to do that, no one had to "enforce" it, perhaps
>>>> aside from parents.
>>>
>>>
>>> Another example of your blind ignorance about social pressures
>>> in the 1950's.
>>>
>>> Janet UK
>>>
>>>

>> I, for one, don't want to go back to wearing poofy skirts. ;)
>>
>> Jill
>
> That's a shame!  I need to find a town where everyone's required to
> dress like that.  I'll start packing when I find one.. ;)

Ever see the movie 'The Stepford Wives'? LOL

Jill

[jmcquown]

That's a very nice dress and her hair looks fine. :) Then again, I used
to collect vintage dresses/gowns, so I have an affinity for things like
that. It's one reason I enjoy watching old B&W films - for the clothing
styles from the 1930's-1950's. A little girls' dress like that never
really goes out of style.

Jill

[jmcquown]

On 9/15/2021 1:44 AM, Michael Trew wrote:
> On 9/14/2021 8:34 PM, Bryan Simmons wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 7:12:11 PM UTC-5,

>> j_mc...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On 9/13/2021 12:32 PM, Michael Trew wrote:

>>>> Yes, I agree. Sexual harassment isn't OK on any level, but if you dress
>>>> with shorts so short that the lower part of your rear end is visible,
>>>> you clearly are expecting to attract some kind of attention or
>>>> objectification. People just have no decency in dressing in public any
>>>> more. Shorts/skirts "fingertip length" with hands down at sides was the
>>>> rule in school, and that ought to apply elsewhere.
>>>

>>> I wore dresses to school they were also short. No, not showing my butt
>>> cheeks, but short. (Note: my mother was 45 years old in 1971 and *she*
>>> wore mini skirts and skorts. It is what the stores were selling and she
>>> was still a young woman.)
>>>
>>>

>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOZPBUu7Fro
>>>
>>
>> --Bryan
>
> That's a good song!  It came to my mind immediately when Jill mentioned
> "mini skirts", but I didn't post it.

It's a great song. :) All about hypocritical thinking.

Jill

[Bruce 3.2]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 18:30:34 -0400, jmcquown <j_mc...@comcast.net>
wrote:

I only watch 1930s-1950s movies when there's a man with a shotgun
standing behind me.

[Michael Trew]

No I haven't, but I just watched the trailer on IMDB... where does one
find this Men's association and one of these wives? ;)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073747/?ref_=vp_back

"From the author of Rosemary's Baby".. I have that one on a VHS
somewhere, and watched it years ago -- that was a good film. I'll have
to track down a copy of the Stepford Wives and watch it.

[Michael Trew]

My hang up is, define safe and stable. Do you consider free welfare
housing in a sketchy terrace, living off of food stamps and other
assistance, to be safe and stable?

Too many single mothers are trapped in that situation, be it from an
unfortunate circumstance, or by choice (5 different children to
different men, AKA welfare queen).

[Michael Trew]

There's no need to be mean.

[Michael Trew]

Thanks! I found this one in the antique mall. Surprisiginly, it's in
good shape and holds up to washing well. Also surprisingly, she's been
able to fit into it for 2 summer seasons. If I "follow the rules" about
white after labor day, I'd say she's probably done with wearing it now.
I think this was taken at Easter this year.

[Michael Trew]

Does that happen often?

Either way, that's your loss. There are lots of good older movies. I
particularly enjoy old TV shows. I accidentally stayed 2 hours late at
work, because someone put on "me TV", and I couldn't stop watching Andy
Griffith re-runs from the early 60's.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053479/

If you've never seen it, it's downright hilarious. It's a shame that
they can't make shows like this anymore, that can be a blast to watch
while still having clean content. I haven't seen any modern comedians
that are funny. It seems like the only time they are allowed to make
jokes, is if they are political these days... Saturday Night Live is
garbage now.

[Bruce 3.2]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 00:00:56 -0400, Michael Trew
<michae...@att.net> wrote:

>On 9/15/2021 3:11 PM, Bruce 3.2 wrote:
>>
>> I think it doesn't matter in what kind of context a child is raised:
>> traditional family, 2 mothers, 2 fathers etc, as long as it's safe and
>> stable.
>
>My hang up is, define safe and stable. Do you consider free welfare
>housing in a sketchy terrace, living off of food stamps and other
>assistance, to be safe and stable?

Not ideal, no.

>Too many single mothers are trapped in that situation, be it from an
>unfortunate circumstance, or by choice (5 different children to
>different men, AKA welfare queen).

Yes, that sucks. People shouldn't have children until they have their
life in some kind of order. But this happens everywhere all the time.

[Bruce 3.2]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 00:06:56 -0400, Michael Trew
<michae...@att.net> wrote:

>On 9/15/2021 6:37 PM, Bruce 3.2 wrote:
>>
>> I only watch 1930s-1950s movies when there's a man with a shotgun
>> standing behind me.
>
>Does that happen often?
>
>Either way, that's your loss. There are lots of good older movies.

I don't like them. The music's cheesy, they're black and white,
they're old fashioned. We've moved on.

>I particularly enjoy old TV shows. I accidentally stayed 2 hours late at
>work, because someone put on "me TV", and I couldn't stop watching Andy
>Griffith re-runs from the early 60's.
>
>https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053479/

I don't know Andy Griffith.

>If you've never seen it, it's downright hilarious. It's a shame that
>they can't make shows like this anymore, that can be a blast to watch
>while still having clean content.

"Clean content" is the least of my priorities. I'm not a child
anymore.

>I haven't seen any modern comedians
>that are funny. It seems like the only time they are allowed to make
>jokes, is if they are political these days... Saturday Night Live is
>garbage now.

I'm not a fan of most comedians, but there are a few good comedy
shows: Curb Your Enthusiasm and Schitt's Creek IMO.

[Gary]

Michael Trew wrote:
> Either way, that's your loss. There are lots of good older movies. I
> particularly enjoy old TV shows. I accidentally stayed 2 hours late at
> work, because someone put on "me TV", and I couldn't stop watching Andy
> Griffith re-runs from the early 60's.

MeTV is my favorite channel. Loads of good old shows every day and all
day and night.

[Gary]

Both of my daughters attended our wedding.
Step daughter was age 2 and stood with us.
Biological daughter was there too - the bride was 5 months pregnant.

It was a good day for all.

[Janet]

In article <shufhm$64i$2...@dont-email.me>, michae...@att.net says...

Your welfare queen is generally in that situation because five
fathers are neither financially supporting their progeny or doing the
practical work of raising them.

" Unemployed and living off benefits" applies just as much to fathers
as it does to mothers.

Janet UK

[Dave Smith]

One of our local TV stations has been running a lot of old shows from
the 60s on. A few months ago we started watching one of my old
favourites, Soap. I PVRed it every say and watched it later in the
evening. Then all of a sudden it wasn't on anymore. The last episode had
been an end of season cliff hanger, but then the show was dropped. Rats.

[Michael Trew]

Can I get that without an antenna or cable? Basically, I'm asking if
there is some kind of streaming alternative.

[dsi1]

Check out Pluto.tv. They have over a dozen channels of that kind of material i.e., "Classic TV."

https://pluto.tv/en/live-tv/beverly-hillbillies-ptv1

[Bruce 3.2]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 16:45:33 +0100, Janet <nob...@hame.cock> wrote:

>In article <shufhm$64i$2...@dont-email.me>, michae...@att.net says...
>>

>> My hang up is, define safe and stable. Do you consider free welfare
>> housing in a sketchy terrace, living off of food stamps and other
>> assistance, to be safe and stable?
>>
>> Too many single mothers are trapped in that situation, be it from an
>> unfortunate circumstance, or by choice (5 different children to
>> different men, AKA welfare queen).
>
> Your welfare queen is generally in that situation because five
>fathers are neither financially supporting their progeny or doing the
>practical work of raising them.
>
> " Unemployed and living off benefits" applies just as much to fathers
>as it does to mothers.

I don't think anybody said otherwise.

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

That wasn't mean, just truthful.

Wait until the topic of chili comes up as it does at least once a year
and you'll understand.

[Bruce 3.2]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 12:45:05 -0700 (PDT), "itsjoan...@webtv.net"

<itsjoan...@webtv.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 11:02:11 PM UTC-5, Michael Trew wrote:
>>
>> On 9/15/2021 3:17 PM, itsjoan...@webtv.net wrote:
>>
>> > On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 12:17:52 PM UTC-5, Michael Trew wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 9/15/2021 6:30 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Is that a picture of your daughter? It won't open for me:((
>> >>>
>> > (I snip a GIANT pile of irrelevant comments.)
>> >>>
>> >> I'm not sure why it won't open, the link works on my end. Yes, it's a
>> >> shot from behind (not face) wearing an ancient dress that I found at the
>> >> antique mall.
>> >>
>> > It opened fine for me, too. The problem is OhFeelMe.
>> >
>> There's no need to be mean.
>>
>That wasn't mean, just truthful.
>
>Wait until the topic of chili comes up as it does at least once a year
>and you'll understand.

If you have a problem with a bit of repetitiveness, why are you
constantly saying the same things to and about John? That's boring as
bat shit.

"You have a computer degree and you can't set up your bla bla?"
"You have a computer degree and you can't set up your bla bla?"
"You have a computer degree and you can't set up your bla bla?"
"You have a computer degree and you can't set up your bla bla?"
"You have a computer degree and you can't set up your bla bla?"

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

You can always killfile me.

To OhFeelMe's credit she doesn't constantly crow about her wealth,
her degrees, her boring meals, her NordicTrack, her inability to obtain
and hold a job despite her 'degrees' nor does she inform us of her
masturbation's, nor her obsession with Bryan.

[Bruce 3.2]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 12:55:41 -0700 (PDT), "itsjoan...@webtv.net"
<itsjoan...@webtv.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 2:47:10 PM UTC-5, Bruce 3.2 wrote:
>>
>> If you have a problem with a bit of repetitiveness, why are you
>> constantly saying the same things to and about John? That's boring as
>> bat shit.
>>
>> "You have a computer degree and you can't set up your bla bla?"
>> "You have a computer degree and you can't set up your bla bla?"
>> "You have a computer degree and you can't set up your bla bla?"
>> "You have a computer degree and you can't set up your bla bla?"
>> "You have a computer degree and you can't set up your bla bla?"
>>
>You can always killfile me.

I've only killfiled really gross (John) and really boring (Hank)
people. Maybe I can killfile more people, but only when they reply to
certain people. "Killfile Joan when she replies to John" kinda thing.

>To OhFeelMe's credit she doesn't constantly crow about her wealth,
>her degrees, her boring meals, her NordicTrack, her inability to obtain
>and hold a job despite her 'degrees' nor does she inform us of her
>masturbation's, nor her obsession with Bryan.

Yes. It's Ophelia, by the way.

[Ophelia]

===

Aww I see her this time:)) Lovely:))

[Bruce 3.2]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 21:18:11 +0100, Ophelia <Oph...@elsinore.me.uk>
wrote:

Yes, and very Little House on the Prairie :)

[Mike Duffy]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 13:33:54 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> The last episode had been an end of season cliff hanger,
> but then the show was dropped. Rats.

The butler didn't do it.

[jmcquown]

I have no idea where you can find it but if you do, don't make a mistake
and get the remake. You want the original 1975 version starring
Katherine Ross and Paula Prentiss. The 2004 remake was silly.

Jill

[Leonard Blaisdell]

On 2021-09-15, Graham <g.st...@shaw.ca> wrote:

> and they try to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

Are you saying that the "enlightened" liberals in this group would
embrace my strong-conservatism with open arms? The good news is that
I've never been religious. The bad news is that the current "deep state"
pseudo-religion doesn't appeal to me either.
So I'm a pariah. Love me! Anybody? Hello?

[Bruce 3.2]

On 16 Sep 2021 22:21:13 GMT, Leonard Blaisdell

It's hard to communicate with someone who doesn't do facts.

[jmcquown]

On 9/15/2021 11:58 PM, Michael Trew wrote:

I just checked the IMDB link. There's a button on the right that says
"Watch Options". You could click on tubitv.com which is probably a
streaming option. Who knows what or how they'd charge you. Or you can
buy it on DVD from Amazon for $41. I loved the movie, it's delighfully
creepy. (I saw it in an actual movie theater when it came out in 1975).
But I don't think it's worth paying $41 to see.

What the trailer doesn't explain is the man in charge of the Men's
Association is a guy whose nickname is Diz. He used to work at
Disneyland. His specialty at Disney was animatronics.

Jill

[Leonard Blaisdell]

On 2021-09-15, Bruce 3.2 <Bro...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> I only watch 1930s-1950s movies when there's a man with a shotgun
> standing behind me.

What's your address?

[Bruce 3.2]

On 16 Sep 2021 23:07:28 GMT, Leonard Blaisdell

:)

[Mike Duffy]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 22:21:13 +0000, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:

> So I'm a pariah. Love me! Anybody? Hello?

Anyone who has the decency & common courtesy to use his full name is aces
in my book. This also includes dsi1 because he has properly identified
himself intermittently despite having an affectation for an
unpronounceable nym.

[jmcquown]

LOL Leo!

Jill

[GM]

I'm *very* conservative and about as UN - religious as one can be...

However in both my work and personal life I've interacted much with groups
such as Lutheran Social Services, Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, Hebrew
Immigrant Aid Society...they do splendid work in assisting people in need...

I currently volunteer with Catholic Charities, and a local Methodist Church...

Does that make me an atheist "blasphemer"...???

IMWTK!

--
GM

[GM]

Although Graham is at an advanced age, his ideological line of thinking is
that of a not - very -bright four - year old watching a simple cartoon...

His political statements here make as much *sense* as AOC showing up at
the Met Gala [tickets are 32K!], in an expensive designer gown emblazoned
with the motto, "Tax The Rich"...

But no worries, Marx, Engels and Lenin are feverishly hoping that both Graham and
AOC will join them in their Commie Circle of Hell when they both croak...

--
GM

[Leonard Blaisdell]

On 2021-09-17, GM <gregorymorr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm *very* conservative and about as UN - religious as one can be...
>
> However in both my work and personal life I've interacted much with groups
> such as Lutheran Social Services, Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, Hebrew
> Immigrant Aid Society...they do splendid work in assisting people in need...
>
> I currently volunteer with Catholic Charities, and a local Methodist Church...
>
> Does that make me an atheist "blasphemer"...???

Not at all, Greg. I believe in the Judeo-Christian system of beliefs. I
believe that churches and synagogues did a better job than the
government, taking care of their own. Neo-Marxism started destroying
those structures in 1964. One can't believe in two all-powerful Gods.
I simply don't believe in either.
Oh...and as you know, you can be conservative without an all-powerful
deity. The news, regarding conservatives, would have liberals believe
otherwise.

[Bruce 3.2]

On 17 Sep 2021 05:44:43 GMT, Leonard Blaisdell

<leobla...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2021-09-17, GM <gregorymorr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm *very* conservative and about as UN - religious as one can be...
>>
>> However in both my work and personal life I've interacted much with groups
>> such as Lutheran Social Services, Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, Hebrew
>> Immigrant Aid Society...they do splendid work in assisting people in need...
>>
>> I currently volunteer with Catholic Charities, and a local Methodist Church...
>>
>> Does that make me an atheist "blasphemer"...???
>
>
>Not at all, Greg. I believe in the Judeo-Christian system of beliefs. I
>believe that churches and synagogues did a better job than the
>government, taking care of their own. Neo-Marxism started destroying
>those structures in 1964.

Not Neo-Marxism. You're obsessed with Karl Marx :) In the 60s people
started using their own brain and questioning authority, including
religious authority. A very healthy development.