Just from attending Riverbend on Friday night has confirmed to me the way today's youth is either allowed to act, or chooses to act behind parent's backs. The amount of females between the ages of 12-17 that were dressed like street walkers was amazing. I have never seen such young girls looking like tramps in my life.
I can only imagine what the repercussions would have been if I were a girl of that age, dressing in that manner, that I would have felt if my parents' would have witnessed it.
Even as a young adult, with no children, it was disgusting to me what these "girls" were wearing.
Parents, pay more attention to how your children are acting, and maybe the headlines would read a little less disturbing. All America needs are more pedophiles preying on your under-aged children who dress like sluts, and put themselves into vulnerable situations like Riverbend.
* * *
Some people are writing in complaining for different reasons on the behavior or character of the teens they have seen down at Riverbend. For the record, no, I donï¿½t approve of some of the things these children are doing or the way some are dressed. But they are not the only ones showing inappropriate behavior. The majority of adults down there are smoking (and not just cigs), drinking and getting wasted, and a lot of them are dressed worse than some of the teens. So before you start rambling on about the teens, make sure you include all who apply.
Oh yeah, the kids arenï¿½t the only oneï¿½s fighting either. Everyone that goes to Riverbend needs to act right instead of looking and acting like a bunch of idiots. And one more thing, people get some manners because no one uses any down there.
* * *
I am a mother of two teenage girls, and when they went shopping for their outfits to wear to the Strut, I was right there. I would even trust them going by themselves because they know what is appropriate for their age. Now to call these young ladies tramps and sluts is going a little bit too far. They may not have the guidance like others girls. We have to also look at the clothing that is being made today.
I saw women and girls who were over weight and had rolls of fat galore (which I have myself) who where inappropriately dressed as well. I get disgusted when I see women who wear low rise jeans showing their butt cracks, tarts, and fat rolls, but I don't call them tramps. They just need some guidance on what is the right thing to wear for their body types.
It is true, mothers should pay attention to what their daughters are wearing, but not because of some pervert - if a man is going to rape you, it is a psychological thing. It is not because of how you are dressed. It is about respecting yourself and being presentable. Iï¿½m just glad they weren't getting busted for carrying drugs and shooting people.
* * *
I blame a lot of the immodesty problem on preachers. Most preachers never open their mouths anymore about sinful immodesty, yet I Timothy 2:9 and Deuteronomy 22:5 are still in my King James Bible. When preaching declines, morals decline. Too many preachers now are more concerned about their paycheck, prestige and popularity than they are about telling the truth. May God give us preachers who aren't afraid to name sin specifically and not just in general.
* * *
Maybe the headlines would be a little less disturbing if people like you would stop calling women (no matter how they are clothed) sexually derogatory names like "tramps" and "sluts." Using this type of language perpetuates the objectification of young women and violent acts against them just as much as you feel that their short skirts and skimpy tops do.
Also, you seem to have left out the other half of the world's population. I see plenty of things that I don't want to see from young men who can't seem to find pants that fit them correctly, but would you use the same derogatory language to describe them as you have used for the girls?
As a young woman, I respect and agree with your opinion that perhaps the world at large should put some more clothes on, but surely there is a better way to convey this sentiment than attacking only one gender with name calling and degradation.
* * *
I have several problems with your post "Young Tramps at Riverbend."
First, the inflammatory use of the word "tramp" in the title clues me in to what sort of person I'm dealing with. To call any young woman with whom you're not even acquainted with a "tramp" shows that you're the type of person who judges first and asks no questions. I take it you have some sort of understanding of teenage sexuality to which the rest of us are not privy.
But more on that in a moment...
My main question to those who spend their free time moralizing about what others are doing is: What business is it of yours? Why do you care what these young girls wear. You admit in your letter that you are not a parent. What difference does it make to you what other people, of any age, wear?
"I can only imagine what the repercussions would have been if I were a girl of that age, dressing in that manner, that I would have felt if my parents' would have witnessed it."
So, by your own admission you not only spent enough time at Riverbend looking at scantily-clad young women to know that there were an "amazing" amount of them there, you have since spent your time imagining what it would be like to be a girl of that age and be dressed like a "tramp"... and then contemplating the punishment for these acts.
Then, in what seems to be a breathtaking example of your lack of self-knowledge You actually say:
All America needs are more pedophiles preying on your under-aged children who dress like sluts, and put themselves into vulnerable situations like Riverbend..
Pedophiles are attracted and generally prey on pre-pubescent children. Pretty much the exact opposite of the "12-17" year-olds that you're so righteously attacking.
However, you have done great community service in pointing these things out.
* * *
I totally disagree that "immodesty" problems are the fault of the preachers. "Preachers" don't purchase these clothes or allow their children to wear them; the parents do.
And please bear in mind, 100 years ago, it was "sinfully immodest" for a woman to show her ankles or to vote. Tacky knows no moral boundary - you either are or you aren't.
* * *
Perhaps you should consider opening your eyes to a world past the Southern United States. Clothing is a part of every culture, and it varies wildly. Near the equator, youâ€™ll find that most people wear as little clothing as possible for the simple reason that it is the hottest part of the world. Their cultures donâ€™t see this as something sexual, but rather a fact of life.
In many parts of the world, it is not considered obscene or unusual for a womanâ€™s breasts to be exposed because they see no functional reason to cover them, and the taboo against it does not exist. In many Muslim countries, women are expected to be entirely covered, and we say that they must be horribly oppressed, but for them itâ€™s a way of life.
In the same way that different cultures see dress differently, different generations view it in other ways as well. While the â€œbaby boomerâ€ generation would not find it acceptable to wear what are today trendy clothes, modern teens find their parents clothing to be gaudy and restrictive. Increasingly, there is no reason to wear clothing that is considered more modest, especially at an event like Riverbend where the wearer will be exposed to high temperatures for longer periods of time than usual.
You should consider that todayâ€™s generation (my generation) does not view modern fashion as more risquÃ© or tempting than the previous generation viewed theirs.
Clothing trends donâ€™t indicate a decline or increase in morals or values. Sexual promiscuity among teens has not been affected by it. Itâ€™s a new standard. Every generationâ€™s style differs from the previous style because kids want to distinguish themselves from their parents (and always have).
The trend toward more revealing clothing is not the result of bad parenting or a decline in social standards. The real cause is simple sociological trend. In every species that hopes to reproduce, both genders have cues that signal whether potential partners are healthy and ready able to provide for offspring. Long ago, pale skin was attractive because it signaled that the potential partner was wealthy enough to escape field labor and stay indoors. Today, tanned skin is preferred for the exact same reason: the potential partner lives well enough to have leisure time in the sunlight instead of being stuck in an office building from dawn to dusk.
These â€˜trampsâ€™ youâ€™re referring to arenâ€™t trying to be sexually provocative (or at least, no more so than teenage girls of any generation). They are simply conveying to the world their qualities as a potential mate, which is natural and healthy for any species.