Mayim Bialik bemoans Ariana Grande’s ads & the downfall of ‘humanity’

Mayim Bialik

Mayim Bialik has a regular column at Kveller, in which she discusses parenting. Her current concern has to do with risqué advertisements, particularly featuring Ariana Grande. Mayim doesn’t specifically refer to which Ariana billboard bothers her, but they’re all the same. Ariana favors short skirts, bared midriffs, and “innocent”-looking ponytails. She doesn’t reveal more than any of her pop-star contemporaries. I think people find it bothersome that Ariana looks so young. I’m just glad she’s covering her bits and pieces.

Mayim is very restrained in her own sartorial leanings. Mayim is Orthodox Jewish and wears modest clothing as part of her religion. She always covers up and sometimes looks frumpy on the red carpet. In a recent essay, she seems very upset about the Ariana ads and constant barrage of Victoria’s Secret tushes.

I am a bleeding heart liberal without exception. But I am old-fashioned. My kids have clothes they only wear to synagogue. I don’t favor my kids cursing. I dress modestly. I don’t want my kids learning about sex from billboards. Stuff like that.

Which is why a few billboards I have seen lately really bug me. There is one for Ariana Grande, and I will go ahead and admit I have no idea who she is or what she does. Based on the billboard, she sells lingerie. Or stiletto heels. Or plastic surgery because every woman over 22 wishes she has that body, I’m sure. Why is she in her underwear on this billboard though? And if she has a talent (is she a singer?), then why does she have to sell herself in lingerie? I mean, I know that society is patriarchal and women are expected to be sexy and sexually available no matter what we do in society, but I guess now I need to explain that to my sons?

Then there are the Masters of Sex ads. Seriously? How am I supposed to explain those to my kids? Especially my older son who can read?

And while I’m having an old lady moment, what’s up with those ads for Levi’s jeans where it’s basically people groping each other as foreplay and undressing each other while making out? Just tearing those jeans off of each other’s bodies like it’s the last day to repopulate the earth. I saw this ad when I went to see the latest Planet of the Apes movie a month or so ago and I thought to myself, “I don’t want my kids seeing this ad if they come to the movies.” I just don’t want them to see this ad.

Am I a crotchety old lady? I guess so. But I just don’t understand why this is what ads need to look like. What good does it do for humanity or society? Why do I have to be OK with young women literally in lingerie on gigantic billboards? If I want to see women in lingerie, I can walk through any mall with a Victoria’s Secret.

[From Kveller]

I see what Mayim’s saying. It’s a little weird to witness VS ads alongside my daughter, but crying about the ads isn’t going to help. I know those ads aren’t going anywhere, and no one else is going to talk to my daughter about them. So I do what a parent is supposed to do: discuss it with my kid. Parents bring children into this world knowing that saucy stuff is out there. It’s not a surprise, so you deal with the subject. PG-13 ads will not go away simply because Mayim Bialik doesn’t want to discuss them with her sons.

Mayim Bialik

Photos courtesy of WENN

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

199 Responses to “Mayim Bialik bemoans Ariana Grande’s ads & the downfall of ‘humanity’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Nev says:

    she’s highly intelligent. I really enjoy her too.

    • Josephine says:

      I enjoy her acting and agree that she is intelligent. But I’m not buying the whole “what am I going to tell my sons?” What is she going to tell them about terrorism? About racism? About addiction? About politics? About polygamy? Grown men who date teens? Uberviolent video games in which the characters kill each other and target women and animals? Of all the things she is worried about explaining, it’s young women in lingerie?

      I get it – I hate the sexualization of women, especially young women playing the Lolita card to “get ahead.” But cry me a river that her chief concern seems to be her boys’ exposure.

      • bettyrose says:

        Beautifully said Josephine. I don’t have brothers or sons, but I have had many close relationships with men and have observed a strong correlation between their relationships with their mothers and how they behave with women. Mayim cannot control the messages her boys see, but she will be the influence that shows her sons that women are just people too. Not perfect but just as entitled to pursue our own destinies and seek pleasure as men.

      • Micki says:

        Very well put!
        As a mother I see it my duty to inform my sons when the time comes about all those issues. And in case of sexual education- several pediatricians (ours too) think it’s better to be over with it by the age of 10! Because teenagers are too embarrassed to discuss it at home and turn for “advice” to uhm…people who don’t share your values most probably.

      • I Choose Me says:

        Well said Josephine. I like her but agree with every word you said. The ‘what about the children?’ pearl clutching, will always make me roll my eyes.

      • Cel says:

        What is she going to tell her children about people who choose not to vaccinate and endanger the lives of people who cannot be vaccinated?

      • Tdub30 says:

        As the mother of four boys I get her point. And more importantly, she’s now a single mother. I don’t think she’s eschewing “truly” important topics for something as benign as women in lingerie, but it does tend to be a concern. I don’t know any mothers who would like the idea of teaching their sons that a woman is merely a sex object and nothing more. And furthermore, she wrote this article based on things that she’d seen which resonated with her, so perhaps your questioning other more important topics is a little off tone.

      • Zwella Ingrid says:

        I really like Mayim a lot. I don’t have time today to read through all the comments, so I’m just going to jump in and say what I have to say and get out, but despite the fact that I like her, and I agree with the disgusting nature of a lot of the ads out there, I find what she says hypocritical in a way, as a particular episode of BBT comes to mind where Mayim’s character, Amy Farrah Fowler is sexually titillated by a spanking from Sheldon. (Only one of many examples I could cite.) So sexualized themes are part of her paycheck. Of course I’m saying I’m offended by the ads, but I keep watching BBT with it’s constant sexual themes. So my point? We are all a bunch of hypocrites-myself being one of them. I know it’s different where your kids are concerned. They are innocent and you want to protect them from the nastiness of the world. But as others have said right from the beginning of this thread, the only possible thing to do is to teach your children the best that you can.

      • StormsMama says:

        @josephine
        THIS THANK YOU

        bc Mayim you CHOSE to bring children into this world. Are you only now paying attention to it? Your faux outrage offends me- seriously doesn’t CBS pay you? The same CBS that champions 2 and a half men and all the other mediocre drivel. Please.

      • reddy says:

        Someone recently showed me a clip of a comedy guy, I cannot remember what his name was, but it was about people being against same sex marriage because “how should I explain this to my child???”. And this guy was just like “well, I don’t care, it’s your f*cking child, you just tell them”.

      • reddy says:

        Someone recently showed me a clip of a comedy guy, I cannot remember what his name was, but it was about people being against same sex marriage because “how should I explain this to my child???”. And this guy was just like “well, I don’t care, it’s your f*cking child, you just tell them”.

    • Santolina says:

      Yes, she’s intelligent, but also a bit preachy, condescending and full of herself. I had to stop reading her blog because it gets annoying after awhile.

    • MoxyLady007 says:

      She is highly educated. But she does not vaccinate leaving her children and as a result other people’s children susceptible to measles, whooping cough, polio etc. Shame on her. I do not consider her intelligent.

      • fairyvexed says:

        Dayam, guess she’s not educated enough.

      • Dommy Dearest says:

        I’m pro-vac but good god, here we go. Cue the anti and pro debates. Or you can just leave it alone since it’s a personal choice the same way as someone’s religious beliefs. I can’t fault people for not buying what’s being sold about vaccines since our government isn’t the most honest. So let’s not label someone as unintelligent just because they don’t do what others do. This isn’t about vaccinations, it’s about the sexualized ads that are on display for children.

      • RdyfrmycloseupmrDvlle says:

        Please explain to me how my unvaccinated children put your VACCINATED children in grave danger. You like filling your babies with mercury, go ahead, be my guest. But dont call me uninteligent, or anything else simply because I choose NOT to fill my babies with mercury. Ill take a fever over Autism any day. Fever is curable.

      • MellyM says:

        What does this have to do with the American government or beliefs?
        Independent scientists around the world have come to the conclusion that vaccines are one of the greatest successes in medical history.

      • Jedi says:

        Ummm. I’m calling troll on the comment two up (above Mellym). common.

      • Serenity says:

        There’s no proof that vaccination causes autism. It’s come on the news many times now that there a single study that showed a co-relation but that study was later found to have skewed results and was pulled because of that very reason.

        Also, there’s such a thing as vaccine failure whereas a person gets vaccinated but for whatever reason, their body doesn’t adequately respond to the vaccine (often they just need a booster shot) – these people are susceptible when others are left unvaccinated.
        Not forgetting those who do not get vaccinated for reasons out of their control – immunocompromised or immunosuppressed individuals or those who have had an allergic reaction to components of a vaccine. Very sick people and pregnant women sometimes need to postpone their vaccinations. These are the many, many people who get put at risk when others don’t get vaccinated.

        Lastly, I don’t think your kid will thank you for this when later on they get to see the broader world. Will they never travel? First world countries have lower rates of these contagious diseases (thanks to vaccination!) but a lot of developing and 3rd world countries still have high rates of these diseases. And when you don’t get vaccinated as a child, you’ll always be susceptible and can still get these diseases an adult.

        I know my speech here won’t change your mind but I just couldn’t let your statement pass.

      • Bob Loblaw says:

        I don’t want to get into this but please get an education, vaccines do not cause autism, there is no evidence supporting that correlation. It was thoroughly debunked and the “doctor” who deliberately wrote the misleading study lost his license to practice medicine because of it. I understand people have fears for their children and I force no one to take any vaccine but please, for the sake of your children, get a clue and get your facts straight.

      • Jules says:

        Anyone that doesn’t get their child vaccinated is a m0ron. Period

      • Mitch Buchanan Rocks! says:

        I wonder if she was ever BFFs with Jenny McCarthy.

      • Lady D says:

        @DommyDearest; Good try.

    • Duchess of Corolla says:

      +1

  2. Godwina says:

    Anyone involved in The Big Bang Theory has no right to accuse anyone else of contributing to “the downfall of humanity.”

  3. Sullivan says:

    I bemoan Big Bang Theory.

  4. Jem says:

    In that top photo, she looks like shes dressed for Abraham Lincoln’s inaugeral ball. I think she can dress nicer than that without showing skin; its not that hard to do.

  5. Godwina says:

    I’m also possibly going to annoy further by adding that “How can I possibly explain this to my kids?” isn’t a valid anything. You’re a parent. Guess what? Explaining the world to your kids comes with the job, whether it’s seeing strangers breastfeeding in public or two men kissing (which is when I usually hear that ridiculous saw come out of people’s mouths). If you and your kids are that tender–if you are that unimaginative and lazy in your stewardship–then homeschool them and keep them in your precious house-bubble until they’ve reached an age you deem acceptable for them to be exposed to anything you disagree with.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      Exactly. It’s a bit silly to complain. Explain it to your kids, lady, that’s your responsibility as a parent. Sexy ads have been around FOREVER because sex SELLS. They’re not going away anytime soon either.

      • mimif says:

        I feel like personally emailing her about the American Apparel ads, cuz she’s gonna have some serious ‘splainin to do if/when her kids see those downfalls of humanity.

      • Pri says:

        I agree, explain to your kids that:
        -not everyone is named John, Rick or Jack
        -People have different heights, and that is ok
        -two men or women can be a couple
        -two people from different races can be a couple
        and more!

        The world is a complex place.

      • Cynthia says:

        Why should I have to explain this to my children constantly? I am supposed to tell my son not to objectify women and girls when they consistently dress and behave in ways that say, objectify me please!!! She is right on this one. You do not have to sexualize your look to express your self or be a feminist. Men will never change, wanting to see as much as they can, and that is ok. It is their nature and how they help to keep us procreating. Like anything else, there is a time and a place, and too much of anything fun can make problems.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        “I am supposed to tell my son not to objectify women and girls when they consistently dress and behave in ways that say, objectify me please!!!”

        Yes, you are. Teach your son that how a woman dresses is HER choice and not automatically an advertisement for her body. Teach him that just because a woman dresses provocatively, that does NOT mean that she’s looking for sex nor does it mean that her body suddenly belongs to men.

        “Men will never change, wanting to see as much as they can, and that is ok. ”

        So let me get this straight–it’s a burden for you to teach your son that women who dress in a sexy way aren’t asking for sex, and you shouldn’t have to teach them anyway because “men will never change and that’s ok.” Wow.
        Ok, then you’re part of the problem and yeah, I call that incredibly lazy parenting on your part,

      • Erinn says:

        Cynthia:

        I am supposed to tell my son not to objectify women and girls when they consistently dress and behave in ways that say, objectify me please!!

        Well… yes. You are. This sounds familiar to the “well she was dressed as a tease, no wonder she got raped” argument. And it’s a terrifying thing to think.

        You teach your son that no matter how a woman is dressed she does not owe them sex. No matter how a woman is dressed she is not ‘asking for it’. You explain to them how respectful relationships work, and you give them the tools necessary to lead honest, kind lifestyles. If you can’t be bothered to do that, there is no wonder where all these completely out of touch perceptions come from.

        “Men will never change, wanting to see as much as they can, and that is ok”

        That IS ok – between consenting adults… your phrasing makes it sound like they are complete animals who cannot control any of their urges. You make it sound like you’re validating crude, lascivious behavior as long as the girl receiving it is dressed in a way that you deem to be asking for objectification.

        Scary.

    • Tanguerita says:

      exactly.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      What an excellent post, Godwina.

    • We Are All Made of Stars says:

      Huh? She has the right to disagree and feel uncomfortable with sexualized images of young girls and women being constantly pushed in her and her kids’ faces if she wants to. She obviously takes her religion seriously and walks the walk with her clothing and behavior. Is there some new prerequisite for living in America whereby we must all act blase about the objectification of women and girls or openly proclaim to “have no problem with it” just to look easygoing and nonjudgmental to other people? It shows that she actively thinks about how this stuff affects girls’ self images and boys’ concept of women. Good for her, whether or not one may agree with her conclusions.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        I don’t see anywhere in Godwina’s comment where she proclaimed to “have no problem with it”. And of course, Mayim’s allowed to have an opinion.
        The point is that wishing it wasn’t there is not productive or helpful to her young sons. Using the ads as a tool to teach her sons why objectification of women is wrong seems to be a much more constructive parenting technique.

      • Eleonor says:

        I think Mayim has taken the wrong perspective about those ads: the point is not “how am I going to explain to my kids”, but “how is it possible that to sell a pair of jeans we have to put sex on display” ?

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        @WAAMOS
        You missed the point entirely. You can shelter your children from all seedy aspects of life by keeping them in lockdown like the Duggars, or you can help them understand life, and why ads that portray women as objects are wrong. It’s your choice. The ads aren’t going away. You can’t control that, but you can control how you handle it.

      • Dio says:

        We are all made of stars, I agree w/you. The sad fact is it’s just not the billboards-(which many of these ads for this stuff is w/models around the age of 13 & up) these tiny tiny shorts, & tween, teen clothing in stores have caused much headaches for my friends w/teen girls. It’s a constant battle shopping for them because these girls want to look like their friends who wear these skimpy clothes.

        Even in my small town, these young teen/tween girls walk up & down the main road in almost nothing. I feel really bad because there are some pretty scary men giving them totally unwanted attention. In their minds, they just want to look cute like their friends…

        I think her thoughts just touch on the surface of what many people are thinking today. Reality shows whose existence thrives on dysfunction, shock value, & sometimes violence. People glorified for constant plastic surgeries & selfies…
        The pressures teens face today are enormous, sad…

      • Geekychick says:

        Maybe if she teaches her boys to not judge anyone based on the way they dress or look? Maybe to teach her boys that every person is a PERSON, not a “concept of women”? It all goes in the direction of Cynthia(upthred):”Men will never change, wanting to see as much as they can, and that is ok. It is their nature and how they help to keep us procreating.” WHAT??
        FFS, if a guy can walk around without his shirt and not be judged as a slut, sexually too available and if he isn’t raped right away, why can’t I?? Ehy should I be judged? Who’s to say for what or who do I dress?
        Maybe that girl in killer mini and deep v has a body to die for, and boobs to kill for and why shouldn’t she dress in something that accentuates them? Because “Men will never change, wanting to see as much as they can…”??? What are men, animals? More stupid than a dog?!
        This whole “be ashamed of your body and be judged on the way you dress” is so stupid, hurtful and hypocritical, it’s almost funny!
        European chick that really can’t fathom how NYC exists in this country, judging by some of the comments here

      • Chem says:

        I agree with your comment, the rest of them are crazy. The woman is giving her opinion about something that she doesn’t think it’s right and people are criticizing her because of that, crazy! Also she is not saying she doesn’t teach her kids what’s right and wrong, she is not asking advice to raise her kids.

      • Godwina says:

        I’m not blase at all about billboarded patriarchy-in-action and I think good people stand up to try to change that. But MB’s reaction wasn’t about that. And mine? I truly believe parents need to acquire the freaking basics of the “teachable moment.” How on earth to navigate kids through, and make them resilient to, a complex world otherwise? The whole “what do I say to my kids?” panic is just too easy, not thoughtful, and not responsible (and just a tad narcissistic). At the very least it’s a signal that someone isn’t too cut out for critical thinking, and this isn’t the first time I’ve caught that whiff off MB.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        Please! If she is so “walk the walk” with her religion, why is she on a show that makes a point of objectifying the blond bimbo character that the supposed stellar intellegence men salivate over and whom one wants as his girlfriend even though they not only have nothing in common, but an estimated 100 point difference in IQs? How does that not objectify women as sexual objects? I guess it’s okay with her because she doesn’t play that character, but she’s making big money off a show that’s supporting/encouraging that attitude. I see that as pretty hypocritical.

    • arabella says:

      I totally agree that she needs to have a convo with her kids, but I don’t see anything wrong with her “complaining” like this. I like that she’s using her celebrity to offer her possibly unpopular viewpoint about the ads. At least it starts a discussion 🙂

    • Lucinda says:

      I don’t know how old her sons are but I know I fought to protect my children from images like that until they were old enough for me to explain it. It IS difficult and frustrating when you can’t go places without seeing huge billboards like the ones she describes and your children ARE going to see them but they are too young to understand any explanation that won’t further confuse them. I see her point completely. It’s not about whether or not they are going to go away. It’s about how they are everywhere all the time and to protect your children, you really do have to take unreasonable measures sometimes. Her column may sound a bit whiny and “get off my lawn” but her points are still valid.

      • ScrewStewrat99 says:

        Exactly Lucinda. It’s one thing to explain this stuff to an older child/teenager, but how can you possibly, effectively explain this crap to young children. You can’t explain to a 3 or 6 year old boy that those women are being objectified and it’s wrong. I like that she’s talking about these things because companies are selling sex to younger and younger targets and it’s disgusting. And yes it could change if enough people bothered to speak out about it or do something like not buy their products.

        Here’s a nice little gem I read the other day. Seems to go along with the topic a bit: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rita-templeton/why-i-want-my-sons-to-see-me-naked_b_5797920.html

    • Wilma says:

      She’s not that tender anyway. See: views on Israel-Palestinian conflict. Apparently violence is easy to explain to your children, but boobs aren’t. Also she might look into the definition of liberal. She is one of the last people I would call a bleeding heart liberal. A hipster of the conservative variant maybe, a liberal definitely not.

      • Godwina says:

        Exactly, Wilma.

      • LAIrisha says:

        Apples/oranges? What does tenderness have to do with explaining why women have to use sex to sell themselves to a 5 yr old? I’ve explained the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in some measure to my 4 yr old, but I would have a hard time with “why is that girl naked when you say private parts are private” question from my kid if that should come up. I don’t think she calls herself a bleeding heart liberal, also… she’s clearly very conservative, at least in the kind of Judaism she chooses to practice. Not defending her personally because I don’t even know her, I just don’t understand what any of that has to do with her critiquing our culture of selling sex and objectifying women (and encouraging women to do it for themselves, too, and then shaming them for it), while on the other hand espousing women’s rights and equality.

      • Wilma says:

        @LAIrisha it’s the first thing that she says in this quote. Maybe read the article.

    • Bob Loblaw says:

      And how hard is it to explain, men are visual, they like to look at naked ladies, naked ladies sell men crap they don’t need. It’s so simple, basic advertising, show a man some boobs.

  6. MCraw says:

    She comes from a different era of entertainment that wasn’t risqué and still highly successful. I mean, she was a teenager who LOOKED like a teenager on prime time TV. Not cable. Not overly primped to look twice her age or a mask of makeup. I love watching old Cosby episodes cuz their kids looked like KIDS. And I guess that’s her point- why is it necessary? Why is it treated like we just have to deal cuz it’s never going away? Why do we have to accept it? Especially when it does nothing to improve attitudes towards women. I agree w her here.

    • avewemissedthecakes says:

      YEP!

    • Lilacflowers says:

      She came from an era of entertainment that had already seen Charlie’s Angels so things really were not all that innocent. I do like that her concern is teaching her sons respect for women.

      • MCraw says:

        Who said innocent? Not me. Charlie’s Angels was sexual like shows today? Where they show full on ASS on tv? Where saying bitch is normal? Please. CA is innocent compared to today’s programming. It used to be coy and tongue in cheek. Now, it’s literally all hanging out. And, again, I’m talking about an era where a child actor could still, at least, appear to be a KID. Have you seen nickelodeon and the like? Those preteens look like young adults. Sexified for what and for whom? It’s inexcusable, and your CA reference is a moot point.

    • latoya says:

      I totally agree with you and I really don’t understand why others think her thoughts are unrealistic. We as adults can choose to have a sexual experience be it visual or physical if we CHOOSE. Why does sex have to be thrown in our children’s faces on an everyday basis? The age old excuse SEX SELLS! Right…

      • TheOneandOnlyOnly says:

        Have to agree with mcraw – CA was pure cheese and the “titillation” was tame by today’s standards or lack thereof. Anywho, I’ll cut someone some slack that has a degree in neuroscience which certainly beats these illiterate vapid pop tarts (beyonce, Katy P, Ariana,etc.) – tastes are different I enjoy TBBT-as a silly comedy what else competes with it?

      • Lucinda says:

        Yes. That degree in neuroscience does count for something. I’m willing to bet she has a better understanding of how those images affect the brain than any of us. She totally concedes the patriarchal nature of our society and how that is a big part of the problem. I think we can try to deal with it and still be outraged. Hell, we should be outraged.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        I don’t think it’s unrealistic. I think it’s hypocracy. If you really and truly were against the exploitation of a women, you wouldn’t be on Chuck Lorre show. Even if the show you were on didn’t exploit women (which BBT does) but theoretically, you still wouldn’t work for a man whose shows are notorious for doing just that – exploiting women.

        Nobody here is saying we like raunchy ads. I’m pretty sure we all agree, they’re gross and offensive. But, to clutch your heart at the thought of sexual objectification being pushed in yours kids’ face while making a living off a known mysogynist and being on a show with Kaley whatsherface’s character, discredits everything she says.

      • hmmm says:

        @JenniferJustice,

        What hypocrisy? So, does that make the millions of women who work in patriarchal institutions hypocrites as well? Hollywood is completely patriarchal and misogynistic. Where is she supposed to go?

      • jenniferjustice says:

        Not on a Chuck Lorre show. She has other options. According to your theory, she’s seeking to stay in show biz and her only options are working for people or ideologies that go against her grain. If it were really against her grain, I would think she’d seek income by some other means and since we all know she is well-educated and has the ability to make a good living outside Hollywood, one can only conclude she chose this path because it’s better money…for someone who already has a lot of money…doing something that supports a mentality she claims goes against her religion. Where’s the integrity in that?

    • Mel M says:

      Agreed McGraw. Everyone saying that it’s a teachable moment for you son? I would be “teaching” my son all day everyday if I let him watch those tween shows on Disney and Nickelodeon. Teaching your son that all of these ads and shows that objectify women and girl’s bodies are wrong is really confusing for a young maturing kid. When they see this everywhere and wonder “If it’s wrong, why is it all over tv and the internet and why does it look like these women are being celebrated and praised for it then?” Because they are! And if you know anything about the average Tween or teenager most of the time they will believe anyone over their parents. I’m not saying I won’t try to teach my son but it’s a lot harder then back in the day when there were like 5 tv shows and no internet so you can’t really compare and say “Oh there have always been things like this”. Sorry but it was never thrown in your face like it is now, even since I was a teen the landscape has changed so much. No one can stay away from the internet now, they use it in schools.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        Nick, Disney, Fox (Family Guy)…what is even more disturbing than the blatant objectification of women/girls, is the idea that the kids are the smarter/wiser ones in the family while the parents are bungling dolts to be tolerated – even protected, you know, because they’re too stupid to protect themselves. I kind of understood the idea in my generation that parents don’t have all the answers, that they’re human – not flawless, and even that we don’t have to agree with their ideology. There has long been an element of bucking authority and questioning beliefs, rules, etc. I get it – rebellion. But what the heck is with this new credo that adults are bafoons and God help us if not for our kids to save the day or clean up our messes – that really grinds me! I won’t let my boy watch those shows.

    • MG says:

      +1. It sounds trite, but I miss those days.

    • joke says:

      Oh please. She isnt that old for God’s sake

    • Bob Loblaw says:

      I’m old enough to remember Charlie’s Angels and the other sexist crap produced by Hollywood and guess what, my parents didn’t let me watch it. That show was an awful example for young women, how can you call it innocent? It was all about T & A, some of the worst programming for women ever, no matter how “smart” the “smart” one was. Don’t romanticize the past or pretend it was perfect. I was beaten by my father and molested by a neighbor and I had no idea what to do about it. At least today kids have a chance to be heard or to find help, a least people talk about abuse now. So what if there’s too much skin, that’s the very least of our problems as a society.

  7. Talie says:

    That purple dress you posted her in actually isn’t bad at all. She looks great — a nice change since she usually looks about 70.

  8. littlemissnaughty says:

    Huh. From the headline I thought she had gone into an epic rant about humanity in general. I think she has some valid points. I barely notice those ads anymore but I’m not a mother. I wouldn’t know how to teach my son not to objectify women when all you see is half naked women on display everywhere, selling clothes (hahahaha!), food, vacations etc. Or tell my daughter to not think this is what women are supposed to look like. That being half naked and sexy is not the objective in a woman’s life. It must be difficult and annoying at times. How do you teach your kids the opposite of what they encounter every single day?

    • Rae says:

      The only thing I’d disagree with is when she muses it might be an ad for plastic surgery because every woman over the age of 22 would wonder why they don’t look like that. As you pointed out Littlemissnaughty, girls much younger than that see these ads and think something is wrong with them, or that they’re unattractive, because they don’t look like the girls/women in these ads.

    • JenniferJustice says:

      By making sure they are exposed to healthy images and ideas of women, marriage and the like. It is aggravating to see the deluge of sexual objectivity my son is exposed to. I watch his reaction. He wears his emotions on his sleeve right now, so I can tell from his facial expressions what he’s thinking. He’s young enough, he’s still grossed out by any bit of female nakedness (embarrassed). We talk about respect and how TV makes sex seem so emotionless/like it’s purely physical….and nasty.

      Honestly, the beer/liquor comercials annoy me more than any other ads. Basically, If you drink this beer, women will converge on you and that’s cool. We talk about how stupid that concept is. I told him women don’t drape themselves all over men because the man is drinking a certain beer. My son’s response was maybe they would if they want beer, but they’re broke. He thinks he’s funny.

    • Ange says:

      It can be done if you genuinely care about the person your kid might turn out to be. I grew up a macho, misogynistic footballing community in a rural area. My parents lived in it as did my brothers and I could have easily followed the path and become another footballer’s brood mare who looked the other way when he cheated but I didn’t. I absorbed the (really minimal) lessons my mother gave me about determining my own future and worth and here I am today, a proud feminist married to a wonderful man who values me for me. My mother didn’t have to work too hard to do this and honestly if you plant the seeds early you won’t either. You only have to get the ideas in their heads and soon it won’t matter about the quantity of images they see because they already know what they really represent.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        Okay, you had me until that last part. I don’t know how old you are but I’m 30 and today’s marketing/advertising cannot possibly compared to what we saw in our childhood. Planting a seed is great and for some, that’s all you need. But let’s not pretend that social media etc. is not an entirely different beast than the couple of Calvin Klein ads that tortured me in the 90s. Today it is nonstop, 24/7 and relentless. You cannot leave your house without being inundated with these images and even if you stay inside, there’s the internet. The few billboards we had 20 years ago were nothing. I grew up in a small(ish) town and unless I bought a magazine, I didn’t see women in underwear. I do remember there was a TV ad in the late 80’s/early 90’s for a shower gel that featured a naked woman. It was sooo shocking. But it wasn’t sexual and it never made me feel like they wanted me to conform to how that woman looked because that was not the message. It is SO different today and I’m not saying it can’t be done but my God, it’s a full-time job.

      • Ange says:

        I’m 34. I didn’t need to see the ads because I LIVED the life where women were nothing but sex objects and there to cater to men. It was my reality 24/7. I saw things from a young age that were degrading and demeaning to women and as soon as I hit puberty it was directed at me and I was expected to smile and go along with it like the rest of them. Yet here we are, all thanks to a little direction from my mother.

  9. Kkhou says:

    Yeah, I have two very young daughters, and ads like that are uncomfortable but have to be used as teachable moments. I definitely look at advertising differently than I did before I had kids, but you just have to use it as a way to talk about these things. It is just life, and you have to teach kids how to deal with the messages that are out there. We try to avoid advertising when we can, but when we come across ads we discuss both the content, and what ads do/ how they work. Even if it is just ads for toys or fast food.

  10. Erinn says:

    I see this as “I don’t want to have to deal with explaining this to my kid, so they shouldn’t be around”.

    Every generation had ads, or singers, or celebrities that were considered to be racy, or pushing limits. The limits may have changed, but there was always someone or something that would be considered inappropriate. People have dealt with it for years.

    And really, she makes her money on a show that has some pretty lowbrow jokes. I’m not sure she has the grounds to complain so much when she’s profiting from it so obviously. If you’re making money from Chuck Lorre shows, you’re contributing.

    Mayim has a really intense parenting style; family beds and breast feeding a 4 year old. And that’s her choice. She has the right to be offended by racy ads, and she has the right to say something. However, I think it’s a bit hypocritical given her current television gig. She says she doesn’t think her parenting style makes her a better mother than any other mother, but you still get the sense of self righteous/judging attitude from her. I’m not sure if she realizes it, or intends to do it, but it’s there. She seems like a really intelligent, nice woman, so I’m not going to give her too much shade. It’s a case of ‘there’s far worse people spouting parenting advice out there’.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      + 1 to everything you say here.

    • M.A.F. says:

      Exactly.

    • latoya says:

      You can choose what shows your young child watches. She could be a porn star and still feel like its inappropriate to have to walk down the street and see Ariana Grande in all her childlike glory in her panties. People love to say get used to it, people are always going to push the envelope but, when does it stop.

      • Bob Loblaw says:

        That’s the point, it doesn’t stop, so you can’t avoid teaching your children about it. There will always be 21 year old women who are scantily clad and getting attention for it. It’s nothing new and pearl-clutching will never change it.

    • I Choose Me says:

      +3

    • jwoolman says:

      But Big Bang Theory is not aimed at children. Parents can choose to not let their kids watch it. The billboards etc. are everywhere and pretty much unavoidable. She’s talking about a different problem, that parents can’t control the timing of such exposures anymore.

      It really was quite different when I was growing up especially in the 1950s and i guess into the 1960s. Despite the lack of diversity and other cultural problems, there were some differences that made more sense. Kids on tv were acting like real kids, not miniature insult comedians. Cheating on schoolwork was bad, not expected as we see in kid shows today. Parents weren’t complete idiots. Commercials actually showed you details about the product rather than just trying to stimulate abstract desire for who knows what it is. Kids on toy commercials were at the right age for the toy (now they’re significantly older than the target group). And kids were exposed to fewer commercials – nowadays more than 1/4 of the show time period is commercials shooting fish in a barrel (aka commercials aimed at gullible kids) or networks building their brand so they can extract money from the kiddies in other ways. We just didn’t have the relentless pressure to spend spend spend on expensive things that kids today experience (so it was a lot easier to be low income). I see shoe and clothing commercials today aimed directly at five or six year olds. Quebec banned ads aimed at children quite a whole ago- commercials for toys and such had to be aimed at the parents and broadcast at hours when the kids were likely to be in bed.

  11. Lia says:

    “I mean, I know that society is patriarchal and women are expected to be sexy and sexually available no matter what we do in society, but I guess now I need to explain that to my sons?”

    ^^^ This is dangerously bordering on slut shaming. In general, the hyper sexualization of women and girls is imposed by a male centered culture. That said, it’s not for me or you or the mailman to dictate what makes an individual woman feel expressed or beautiful. This rant is entirely focused on women who choose to wear revealing clothing. Of course sometimes the reasons behind those choices stem from a place of coercion and dehumanization, but when that’s the case, let’s have a conversation about predatory ad executives, and marketing teams who take young girls and turn them into real dolls. The problem is not, and has never been, with the clothing women choose to wear. The problem is with what men feel they are entitled to if women wear certain clothing. The undercurrent in her complaints is that the “trashy women” are going to negatively impact her precious little boys. If your sons are old enough that these types of images warrant a discussion, that discussion needs to center around healthy, mutual sexual encounters and individual body autonomy. We do not own what we see others reveal, skimpy clothing is not an invitation.

    As an aside, my kid sees virtually none of these images. She’s free to move out of NYC if pop culture is this offensive to her.

    • Erinn says:

      Beautiful, Lia. I agree with this so much.

      If you can’t (or can’t be bothered) teach your sons to be respectful, regardless of how much clothing people around him are wearing (man or woman), what kind of parent are you? This is half of the problem. It’s the lazy parenting of “well… it’s because of the media. It’s the video games. It’s because of the girl wearing too little clothing”. Plenty of people grow up to be kind, respectful people when they’ve exposed to this kind of thing. It’s about finding the valuable teaching moments in these situations. Take some time to talk to your kids and put expectations on their behavior. You can try and shelter them as much as possible, but at some point, if you’re not discussing important things with them, you’re setting them up for problems.

      • TorontoE says:

        Lia – you’re so wise and what an articulate deconstruction if the issue. I’m totally memorizing it for the next time someone makes a rude comment!

    • Lithe says:

      Thank you for articulating this POV so perfectly. I couldn’t agree more!

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      In love with this comment. ♥

    • kpoodle says:

      Agree! Ariana Grande annoys me x1000, however, I feel like this is slut shaming masquerading as concerned parenting.

    • Lucinda says:

      I disagree that it is slut shaming. She is making a valid point. Women as sexual objects is so deeply ingrained in our society that most women in those ads are not empowered. Girls are taught from a very young age that being sexy and attractive is only equivalent to having the perfect body and showing it off. These young women believe they are “empowered” because they are choosing to be photographed this way but is it really empowerment when that is the only option that will earn them acclaim? Honestly, do we as a culture, celebrate women of science, industry, power, intelligence? Can you truly say these “empowered” young women have other options to achieve the same level of fame?

      I know how hard I’ve worked to counteract these constant messages of patriarchy and sexuality from the media with both my son and daughter. It’s a daily conversation. To me it’s about balance and the lack of other options that make these billboards so concerning. Maybe that isn’t where Mayim is coming from but that’s how I read it.

      • MsMerury says:

        @Lucinda I agree with you. What bothers me most though is that you see so much in today’s videos the girls are always mostly naked and the men are fully clothed. I mean look at Jay & Bey or Nicki Minaj giving Drake a lap dance in her video. These are strong, talented women but they still have to be seen as sexy to sell their music. The only ones that don’t play that game are Adele and Taylor Swift.

      • Bob Loblaw says:

        I don’t think you understand sexual freedom or the women’s movement. Young women today have been raised to embrace their sexuality and flaunt their bodies and you want to paint that only in terms of misogyny. You don’t know young people if you think they’re dressing to please executives. Yes, they’re vulnerable to advertising but they are also comfortable with skin and there is nothing wrong with that. I may hate crop tops but I see nothing wrong with the women self-confident enough to wear them. The problem is in your perception of all things as sexual, they’re not, let people be themselves and let go of these dated attitudes about dress code.

  12. cari says:

    I find her to be very intelligent and well spoken as well. Although I don’t necessary agree with all her beliefs (referring more to parenting style) I do find she is non judgmental. Sometimes I think we do need a little more modesty in this world. She makes a valid argument.

    • MollyB says:

      She’s horribly judgemental. I remember seeing her on the View or the Today Show or something debating parenting with Rebecca Romijn and she was just awful. Any mother who doesn’t sleep with and breastfeed their preschool age children are selfish and uneducated, etc etc. She’s the worst.

      • cari says:

        I think you are referring to Anderson Cooper interview. Funny, we totally have different takes on it. I thought she was very articulate, and in no way judgemental. I actually felt she was the one being judged, and was a little on the defensive about. I actually just re-watched the clip on youtube. I guess, we all form different opinions.

    • Bob Loblaw says:

      I ask this sincerely, why do we need more modesty? How much repression do women have to experience before it’s okay to be yourself? My entire life I’ve been told to behave a certain way, held to a higher standard, and I’m sick of it. If I want to stroll down the street naked, why shouldn’t I? Society make it a crime to just be a naked woman, it’s disgusting. Stop shaming women, if you want to change the world, start holding men to a higher standard!

  13. Hands Off says:

    Women just love to take down other women through appearance. Why does she think it’s okay to tell another woman what to do with her body? I agree Grande is a talentless clone, but…

    • otaku fairy says:

      I think the girl is pretty talented, I’ve listened to a lot of her music. She has at least a four octave voice, possibly better, and it’s pleasant to listen to. But that’s okay if you disagree.

      I do think part of her comment was a little rude. Here she goes bemoaning patriarchy, but then she resorts to the same old patriarchal tactic of using a woman’s physical appearance/sexuality to discredit her ability and accomplishment. If you don’t think a woman is talented or good at something, that’s fine, but let it be because you’ve seen what she can do and you’re just not impressed, not because you don’t approve of or are morally opposed to her aesthetic choices or sexuality.

      The “Woman can’t have talent because she’s not as modest as I want her to be” argument is not only sexist, but also fallacious. We all know that Mariah Carey, Christina Aguilera, Beyonce, and Pink have shown more skin and been more sexual in their music than Ariana ever has, and yet who could honestly say that none of those four women have talent?

      I’d like to see a day when the feminist answer to “We don’t womens’ worth to lie in whether or not cishet men find them sexy , we don’t want women to be forced to live up to that narrow definition of sexy and beautiful, and we want women to respected as human beings” is not “So women must not make choices X Y or Z with their looks or bodies; if they do that’s exploitation, it can’t be a choice, they’re to blame for our problems and they’re the enemy, let’s attack and scapegoat them. Women must earn respect as human beings through covering up and not being ‘slutty’.” Because that response is just victim-blaming all over again.

      I don’t think people stop and think about the subjugation, danger and dehumanization involved in making it the responsibility of one group of people to ‘earn ‘the human respect of another group of people through exhibiting only the ‘proper’ (whatever that is) physical and sexual choices with their bodies in the name of ‘social justice’ or ‘equality’.

  14. Kiddo says:

    On the one hand, I understand what she is saying. If you have talent, sell the talent, not the T and A, and that a parent might not want young minds being sculpted by these visuals or having to address them on the spot. On the other hand, a few religions are highly patriarchal and rely on women to cover up in order to keep men from acting on desires, which the men apparently have no control over, and which woman are considered responsible for. I’m not sure if she was agreeing with the patriarchal nature of society in that quote, or not, she seemed accepting of it on some level, but I think we can all agree that it exists.

    In an internet world, the billboards are probably the least risque, in terms of things that kids can be exposed to. As someone mentioned above, the themes in BBT often subscribe directly to the women as sex symbols trope. I guess she could say she doesn’t allow them to watch her show. I haven’t seen the ads she spoke of so I don’t know how much is pearl clutching and how much could be valid in terms of them being highly inappropriate.

  15. Steph says:

    Mayim is right….the world didn’t always have these suggestive ads…so why now? The Levi’s ad is over the top gross. Pedophiles and perverts love them though.

    • Algernon says:

      People were scandalized by Flappers in advertisements in the 1920’s, with their bare knees on liquor ads and bare backs in makeup ads. And makeup ads! Why I never, who advertises that harlotry? A girl shouldn’t be using rouge or lipstick, it’s indecent! All a good girl needs is a healthy pinch on her cheeks and she’ll be pretty as a picture. What is the world coming to when they advertise that sort of thing in the Sunday paper!

      In the 1930’s its was the Coke girl with her red lips puckered up to take a sip from a bottle. Well, this is just the end! What do these people think they’re doing putting that in papers and on posters. I was down at the five and dime and I could have just died right there in the street because they had one of those hussy posters on display in the window for all to see. It’s not right, having women making that face for all to see.

      In the 1950’s and 1960’s it was the pinup girls and Pirelli calendars that scandalized everyone. And then in the 1970’s the supermodel was born and by the 1980’s people were fully naked in ads on the regular.

      We can have a discussion about the objectification of women in media, but to act like this is a new phenomenon is ludicrous. Mayim Bialik is just the latest in a hundred-year-long line of fuddy-duddies.

      ETA: My problem with her comments is the implication that good girls don’t dress sexy.

      • Kiddo says:

        Kudos for the use of fuddy-duddies. I love this comment for that phrase alone. lol.

      • lunchcoma says:

        Exactly, Algernon. Papilations about women’s sexuality and nudity (for various values of that) have been around pretty much forever. It’s not as if the current level of acceptability has changed very recently, either. The ads that are used today are very similar to the ones that were used in the ’80s when I was a child.

      • I Choose Me says:

        I love this comment so much.

  16. aang says:

    The difference between the BBT, which I agree is terrible, and the ads, is that a parent can police what their young children watch on television. It is much harder to stop them from seeing billboards or the giant nude Abercrombie posters at the mall. She is right about women needing to be seen as sexually available at all times. I still haven’t forgiven Time magazine for making “the most influential woman” (barf) pose on the cover in her underwear.

    • Steph says:

      People should remove the TV from their homes and regulate computer use for Tweens and teens. There have been some disturbing studies on how our youth are becoming oversexualized. Parents like me are personally fed up with all of the R rated garbage thrown up on the screen even during the supposed family hours. Removing the TV has actually been a positive thing. I hope more and more people start to realize the benefits of no TV.

      I honestly think that if you are a little girl being brainwashed with all of these sexual images then you will subconsciously conclude that a woman’s value is only her tits and ass,regardless of what your parents teach you.

      • Algernon says:

        “People should remove the TV from their homes ”

        And actually have to talk to their families? Hahaha, that will never happen.

      • Steph says:

        Algeron……that is what is scary about the world today,noone really talks to each other and that includes family members. I laugh at the comments where people say that the parents need to talk to their young children about sexual images and the violent images that they are bombarded with daily.

        First of all,most parents are working full time and only have about a 2 to 3 hour window to speak with their children. During that time the parent and child are unwinding from both work and school,making dinner,doing household chores,homework and then bed…in reality most parents are exhausted and unfortunately do not spend this time discussing all of the garbage that little Sally or Johnnie get exposed to on a daily basis. This is why it is frustrating to hardworking parents when corporations use sexual messaging and violent imagery on a daily basis to promote their goods. Our children are like little sponges,their little brains are continuously processing this garbage and it would be nice if companies,advertisers and the entertainment industry would tone it down a notch.

      • Erinn says:

        Okay. So. I was born in 1990. We had a computer with internet in the house when I was in 4th grade I believe. I used the internet quite a bit as a young teen, and well into adulthood. I saw the Britney Spears school girl outfits, I saw the Christina Aguilera Dirrty and Fighter when I was 12/13. I was exposed to this kind of crap that kids are being exposed to now. Both of my parents had full time jobs.

        I’m 24. Married. Home owner. I have never once felt that a woman’s only value is in her “tits and ass”. Know why? Because I was exposed to strong, intelligent women. I was explained to that the bodies I see on TV are not what a teenager should be expecting to have, and that they were rarely the real deal – photoshop and extreme dieting caused them.. I lived in a home with a father who did not ever speak disrespectfully of women. I think the most I’d hear from him would be “Oh, soandso actress is cute”. Not “Oh she’s hot” or “look at that ass”.

        I had school peers getting pregnant and bragging about ‘how far’ they went – even in Jr High. Almost every single case of that involved parents that didn’t talk to their kids, or parents that just didn’t give a shit about what their kids did.

        So clearly, good parenting can make up for a lot of the brainwashing. I have never felt that my worth was tied solely into my appearance, and I was always encouraged to be smart and funny and my own person and to not look up to the Britney’s and Christina’s of the world.

      • Algernon says:

        @Steph

        I’m sure it is difficult, but there are many of us who grew up steeped in pop culture and who had two parents working and yet turned out fine. There are many busy parents today who still find time to talk to their kids. It’s not insurmountable. There is too much objectification and glorification of violence (just look at the NFL) in our culture, but by overwhelming odds, kids are still turning out to be perfectly reasonable, well-adjusted, productive adults. My point with this whole thing is that there has *always* been some element of culture that is seen as too sexy/racy/adult and one generation always laments the wild ways of the next. My grandmother was scandalized that her daughters like Elvis, my mom can’t believe I like Game of Thrones, and I’m sure in 20 years the tots in my life will find some way to shock me. And yet the odds are overwhelming that they’ll turn out okay.

        I don’t want to belittle how hard it must be to parent, especially these days when everyone is so busy, and yet somehow people still manage.

  17. M.A.F. says:

    She kept repeating this over and over again “How am I suppose to explain this to my boys?” YOU ARE THEIR PARENT, FIGURE IT THE F**K OUT!!

    Dress codes at schools target girls because somehow we are to blame for boys not being able to control themselves and it goes back to parents like her. You are their mother, how about you explain to them that just because you see a woman dress like this does not make her a whore or anything less than a fellow human being. I guess her PhD didn’t cover common sense.

    • Danskins says:

      +1. Still a fan but her article is somewhat disappointing. She’s very smart so I though she’d have something more interesting to lend to the subject other than “what will I tell my sons?” over and over. It’s not very groundbreaking, this patriarchal topic has been overwritten about for decades. IMO, she sounds no different than a Duggar in this instance.

  18. savu says:

    Bemoan the sexy ads, fine. But use it as an opportunity to talk to your kids and instill whatever values you want.

    I don’t get the Masters of Sex criticism at all though. Their ads are modest. It’s just the word sex, which isn’t inherently bad.

  19. original kay says:

    I’m more concerned with the boobies that pop up when my 7 year old loads Roblox.
    It is what it is, and we talk about it. You can’t live in our society and NOT talk about with your kids.
    It interesting to me that she wrote this, because she is toted as being an “intellectual”. She should know then, that you cannot change what others do, but only your reaction to them. If she wants to facilitate change, it starts at home, with talking with your family about society and our place in it.

  20. Sam says:

    I just really hate that whole “how do I explain this to my kids” line of thinking. Frankly, because I feel like it’s lazy. The world does not have to conform to your worldview. There are parents who have no issue with this stuff, or they’re just better at explaining it.

    All this stuff is scandalous because of the value we attach to it. If you strip away all the values attached to this stuff, a billboard of Ariana Grande is simply a picture of a woman who is not wearing a lot of clothes. That’s it. It’s how you reconcile that with your values that creates the issue. I’ve had to explain stuff like this to my daughter, and I just explain it as “Some people are okay with other people seeing them this way. Some people aren’t. One isn’t worse than the other.”

    I practice modesty because I’m a Christian. I don’t believe the body is filthy or sinful or for one man only forever. I feel more comfortable dressing this way. I like the idea that there is a view of me that only my husband gets to see. I feel like that contributes something to the relationship. But I don’t think Ariana Grande is doing anything wrong. The uncomfortableness I have with images like that is because, very often, the women in them aren’t really comfortable doing that – they are pressured into it by people with authority over them, and that’s a problem. But how can you know that from the image alone?

    Let me add this: Why is it always sex? I am disturbed that if my child sees the news, she will likely be exposed to all manner of violent imagery and news. Personally, that worries me more than a picture of a woman in lingerie. We act as though sex is an abombination but violence is just normal. Priorities….

    • Kiddo says:

      Yeah, the blood lust in the culture is much higher than any other imagery and narration.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        But it’s easier to explain violence to children as “bad”–there’s not usually a gray area there, unless you’re talking about self-defense. Matters of sexuality is much more complicated.

      • InvaderTak says:

        And sexualized pop culture is seen more easily and frequently than the news. You don’t get billboards with images of war on them very often.

      • Kiddo says:

        While you can say, “it’s bad”, there are so many contradictions to that sentiment and the imagery and justifications for war, violence, revenge, violence as entertainment, and so on, are so pervasive,so ubiquitous, that that is more of an up hill battle and I’d argue more likely to be the downfall of humanity in the literal sense.

        How many CSI shows are there? How many movies involve guns? None of the billboards show the guns or weaponry? How much news involves acts of violence? How much news of leadership focuses on war and retribution?

      • Sam says:

        Kitten: I don’t believe sexuality is necessarily complicated. Sexuality becomes complicated because our society has attached so much baggage to it in terms of values. Sexuality, unlike violence, is also inborn – people will figure out for themselves what works for them sexually, whereas violence is largely taught. Truthfully, I’d rather have to have a sex talk with my children rather then have to explain to them about violence. Sexuality of others isn’t a threat to my kids, but violence is. Frankly, I’ve found discussing violence and force to be deeply complex, since they involve concepts like self-defense, personal integrity, inherent biases, etc. It’s complex once you start to think about it.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        I think you guys misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn’t talking about how violence or sexuality is shown on television or whatever, I was simply making a distinction between how the two are perceived differently–in a general sense.

        There are laws in place that prevent people from acting out in a violent manner. In that sense, as a society we send a clear message to children that violence is something that they can and will be punished for–it’s wrong and it’s not ok to do.

        Whereas, as a society we’re still exploring our relationship to sexuality, we’re finding our individual voices, and throwing a spotlight on what we may or may not consider sexual norms.
        If you ask the average person if stabbing someone is ok, most would say no, it’s not. However, if you ask the average person if having sex at 16-years-old is ok, you’ll get a variety of different answers.

        If you asked someone 40 years ago if shooting someone is a decent thing to do to another human being, that person would probably say “no” and the same would hold true if you asked a person the same question today. Ask a person 40 years ago whether homosexuality is wrong, most would probably say it is wrong, but ask that question today and most people would probably say it isn’t wrong. Our view of violence hasn’t changed in a moral sense whereas our view of sexuality has changed greatly, and will continue to change in the future.

        That doesn’t mean that we haven’t become more blasé about violence, but it’s just to say that the general consensus has always been that violence is wrong, and it probably will remain the general consensus as long as we have laws in place.

        The truth is that sexuality is far more perceptive-based as it doesn’t have a negative affect on society that can be directly measured, the way violence can be.

        Sexuality is not inherently evil from a societal standpoint, whereas violence is generally accepted as such.

      • Kiddo says:

        @TheOriginalKitten, disagree. Violence and killing is bad, unless you impose the death penalty, then it is okay. Killing people without arrest and trial is bad, unless you only SUSPECT they are terrorists in another land, then you can unilaterally execute them. People are not entitled to beat up other people for no cause, unless they are the police. Good guys carry guns, but can do bad things for no reason. There are absolute contradictions in how society views violence and with much greater consequences to humanity. Kill our children and civilians, you are the devil. Kill others’ children and civilians, it’s collateral damage, and so on. Mixed, mixed messages.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        These are not things you would have to explain to a child, maybe to a teenager but by then they have the foundation to grasp politics, societal constructs and the surrounding issues that you bring up in your post.

        You can tell a child that violence is wrong, but you cannot tell a child that sexuality is wrong. Sex is not wrong, even though society is full of messages that tells us it is.

        How old were you when you learned about sex?
        I remember my parents making me watch a Nova special when I was 5 or 6. I had a lot of questions after that show.
        I don’t remember my parents EVER having to explain to me how violence occurs and why it’s wrong on a very basic level. By the time I was ready to wrap my head around something more complicated like say, capital punishment, I was in middle school and old enough to do my own research.

        Violence isn’t the norm for the average person, whereas sex is. It makes it more complicated because it’s something we will probably all do at some point in our lives, and how we handle sex/sexuality will become a huge part of how we perceive ourselves and others. Unless you’re a nun, sex is an inevitable, whereas with any luck, violence will be something you never have to personally experience.

        I guess we just have to disagree on this one. Again, subjectivity, different perceptions, etc. I see violence (in a general sense) as easier to explain to children than sexuality, which I view as a more complex, nuanced subject.

        *shrugs*

      • Kiddo says:

        Just to answer in consolidated form: My parents were libs, I knew about sex early, they wouldn’t have shuddered over sexy pics in ads. But at 8, I definitely watched news and saw violent programing. Hell, today all you have to do is watch sports to see if violence is questionable, and apparently it is, with mixed messages. Pummeling that guy on a field is okay, it is SPORT. How many TV shows incorporate violence into themes? The good guy cop beating the snot out of the bad guy for answers. Watch Shrek, there is violence. It’s everywhere and it’s not presented always as a bad thing.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        If I ever have a kid, here’s how I’m going to explain violence to him/her: “Kitten, Jr, don’t hit that other child because it hurts them and it’s not ok to hurt another child.”

        …and when it comes time for them to understand sex and that “funny feeling down there” I’m sending them to your house, Kiddo.

      • Kiddo says:

        Your hypothetical child is welcome to visit.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Do they make toddler-sized muumuus?

      • Kiddo says:

        @TheOriginalKitten, They probably do. If not, your hypothetical toddler can come to my hypothetical mansion, where hypothetically, l am a master seamstress who will make one for her, while sipping hypothetical Kool-Aid with vodka. Hypothetically, you’re welcome to come too on your hypothetical private jet.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Oh man, I am SO down to hang at your hypothetical Palace of Vodka, Muumuus, and Dreams.
        I think I’m gonna leave the hypothetical kid at home though. I don’t want Kitten, Jr ruining all our fun. Hypothetically.

      • sigh((s)) says:

        I’m with kiddo on this. Violence is more difficult to gloss over without firm knowledge of certain concepts. I have a 6 year old. We have many gay friends. I have never gotten a question about why Mr. X and Mr Y are married or really any questions other than very basic things about sexuality. It’s just not where his mind is. It will be, one day. I have gotten many more questions on violence. You absolutely have to talk to kids about violence very early and way before they have the concepts of the sociology of war down. Because violence (of a sort) is okay under certain circumstances. At least in the world at large.
        I would imagine it’s probably more difficult for Mayim to discuss women is various states of undress because she herself and those they socialize with are pretty modest. In my house we walk around naked like it ain’t no thang, so he doesn’t have those contradictions to confuse him.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Take the Ray Rice situation, which touches on both sexuality and violence. I could explain the violence as this: Ray Rice is a man who has a terrible temper coupled with anger issues, who doesn’t know how to handle those feelings. But how would I explain Janay’s reasons for staying with him? Much more complex IMO.
        Janay’s sense of self-worth and how she views herself in terms of her relationship to men–that’s sexuality. Sexuality is more complicated because it’s private and it’s personal, and it involves one person’s history. Violence is something that happens outside of ourselves (the action part, not the cause)-it’s usually in the form of an action that can be easily (not always but usually) identified with a cause and an end result. There’s a repercussion to violence whether it’s someone ending up dead, hurt, or in jail. True that it gets murkier when we take something like the NFL, where violence is all but celebrated (great example BTW, Kiddo) but generally violence is just a more linear topic, whereas sexuality is so very nuanced, so subjective, and so emotionally-based, that it becomes harder to explain.

        And here I am arguing again. Sorry Sighs. Kiddo-I’m coming over with vodka Kool-Aid and a spliff.

    • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

      That’s one of the things that I never liked about the Christians that I knew/know in violence vs. sex. They are perfectly okay with watching an action/war film with a lot of violence, guns, and fighting, but God forbid there be a kissing scene.

      • Sooloo says:

        Love when people criticize beliefs of others when they’re totally inconsequential to the critic’s being. If this was ok for their life/lifestyle, what business is it of yours, and who are you to judge (and/or expect them to justify them)? Very hypocritical.

  21. Irene says:

    Doesn’t she earn millions of dollars playing a character who makes sexual passes at Kaley Cuoco while she’s wearing tiny little tank tops and booty shorts?

    • PunkyMomma says:

      Yes.

    • Rana says:

      she makes around 60k-70k/ episode. Nothing like Kaley Cuoco with her 1mil/episode.

      • Erinn says:

        Still millions, though. If you just look at the season that’s just about to air – there are 24 episodes. 24x60k is 1,440,000 – almost 1.5 million from one season alone, if you’re going with the lower end of your pay estimate. But actually:

        In September 2013, Bialik and Rauch renegotiated the contracts they held since they were introduced to the series in 2010. On their old contracts, each was making $20,000–$30,000 per episode, while the new contracts doubled that, beginning at $60,000 per episode, increasing steadily to $100,000 per episode by the end of the contract, as well as adding an additional year for both.

        So even on the lower paying years, they were making 720,000 per season. And it’s only increased since then. She’s made millions playing this role.

    • NorthernGirl_20 says:

      Mayim’s character doesn’t wear tiny shirts or shorts..

  22. Emily says:

    My problem with her comments is mainly how she feels justified criticizing someone, while admitting she doesn’t know who they are or anything about them. People can dress however they want. She doesn’t know Ariana personally. She knew the world she was bringing her children into. Ugh.

  23. Suzy from Ontario says:

    One thing I do agree with though is why, if someone has talent as a singer and maybe a songwriter as well, do they feel the need to have to expose their bodies so much for attention? I know it’s become the norm, and I guess a lot of singers feel they have to do it to compete, but I think of singer/songwriters in the past with talent (Stevie Nicks, the ladies from Heart, Carly Simon, etc) and cannot imagine them doing so, and in fact could see them rebel against doing so. Their music and talent was enough without having to go overboard into overt sexuality.

    Maybe Madonna brought it into music in a big way and since then it’s become an expected norm, but I think it actually makes them appear less talented and taken less seriously by the industry. And many of them are truly talented, so it’s a shame that they feel they have to sell themselves sexually in such a way to compete or get noticed.

    That’s just my two cents. I understand why they do it, but it’s sad that they might feel they have to even if they don’t want to. I’m not a prude and I enjoy a lot of Madonna and Britney and others of that ilk, but the envelope is being pushed a lot lately (cough*Miley*cough) and maybe I’m just tired of the overt sexuality that’s so ubiquitous today. Sometimes less is more.

      • InvaderTak says:

        Lindsey and I] were really poor when we took that picture [Buckingham Nicks album cover], and I went out and spent my last $111 on a really beautiful, very sexy blouse. And they agreed to do half the session in the blouse, and I thought ‘Oh, I’ll win. They’ll love this blouse, and they’re gonna love the way I look.’ Well halfway through the session, one of the photographers came over and said, ‘Okay, it’s time to take off the blouse,’ and I died. it was awful, you know….

        And maybe that has a lot to do with why I went from that [points to Buckingham Nicks cover] to that [points to Rumours cover]. Because I said, ‘All right, that’s it. We’re gonna work this out so that I still have an image and a vibe, but instead of going in the direction that a lot of the women singers are going in now, I’ll be very, very sexy under 18 pounds of chiffon and lace and velvet. And nobody will know what I really am. I will have a mystique. None of these other people will have a mystique, but I will.’ And I have that mystique. That’s one thing that I’m real proud of.
        ~Stevie Nicks, Us Magazine, July 23 1990

        I think young pop tarts should hear this story over and over. She did something about it when she didn’t like it. And it worked.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        That’s a great story. She’s such a fascinating woman.

        But just to be clear: my point was that the objectification of women has been happening for a long-ass time.

        Cool to read how she flipped the script on them though and took control. Go Stevie.

      • InvaderTak says:

        Also to be clear (wasn’t trying to bash you or anything Kitten. Posting that picture reminded me of that story.) :my point with that story was that more women should stand up for themselves if being sexual like that isn’t what they want. Don’t excuse, and take action for yourself. Not sure if I’m putting it into words correctly, but nothing will change by just saying that’s the way it is. Not likeing it isn’t enough.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Totally agree, InvaderTak.

  24. Izzy says:

    While we’re bemoaning the downfall of things, can we talk about her horrific fashion sense?

  25. berrymum says:

    I have never commented before but i wanted to for this post: i watched blossom as a kid and i remember blossom bouncing around with salt’n’pepa making a home video for her mom where they sang “let’s talk about sex.” that was risque to me at the time. the ’90s weren’t a wholesome decade of restraint.

    also, explaining a woman breastfeeding or two men kissing in public is easy because it is acceptable human behavior (i.e nourishing your child and expressing love to your partner, respectively). however, explaining the unnatural expectations society puts on women, our bodies, and our sexuality isn’t something to be explained like it is normal or acceptable; it is just another paradigm that we as mothers have the privilege and responsibility to smash!

    • I Choose Me says:

      Welcome berrymum and well said. I’m glad you decided to comment. This is one of the reasons I love Celebitchy so much. The snark and the intelligent debates that take place from time to time. *hugs*

  26. I get what Blossom is saying here. I don’t think it’s so much having to explain this crap to her kids so much as at what age. Pretty sure hers are under 8 years old which come on…that’s a bit young for the talk. I also agree that Ariana Grande is a pox on society but that’s because she squicks me out with her Pedobear approved wardrobe and ‘little girl voice’…the infantilism of women is up there with the sexualization in today’s day and age. And sorry but to all those crying ‘slut shaming’ I think the big problem today is that no one seems to have ANY shame any more…discuss.

    • otaku fairy says:

      But Ariana is 21, it’s not her fault that she’s only 5’0″, has the face of a 15-year-old, and has a young voice. She’s always been that way- she looked older before she lost the weight. She’s been wearing more make-up lately, so I think she knows people think she looks like a kid and is deliberately trying to look older because of it now. I don’t think it’s fair to expect an adult not to do something just because they look younger than they are.

  27. BendyWindy says:

    I didn’t realize she was Orthodox. Does she cover her hair?

  28. kri says:

    Like most of you, I’m seeing this as a chance for Mayim (and anyone else who feels this way) to teach her kids the bigger lessons here-not that seeing a nearly nude body is “bad”, but the context is what matters. If I had kids, I’d be more into explaining the reasons behind the pictures/ads than the image itself. That is how you raise a male or female feminist.

  29. Sumodo1 says:

    When my son was in third grade, he was already a pro at reading billboards out loud for me, and one day, he exclaimed: “Live nude girls!!!” I retorted: “Well, that’s better than DEAD nude girls!!!” We laughed ourselves sick. THE END.

  30. otaku fairy says:

    By the way, I saw the picture she’s complaining about, and it’s very tame. Most would consider it ‘tasteful’. It’s black and white, and in it the pic the’lingerie’ Ariana is wearing actually covers more than what a bikini would cover. No tits or ass hanging out, and you can’t even see her navel. It looks like an old-fashioned two-piece bathing suit, and her pose isn’t at all raunchy. IT’S THE SAME EXACT PICTURE ON HER LATEST ALBUM.

    I think the fact that that’s the pic she wrote this about shows that she’s a person with rigid views about the way sexuality and women’s looks are ‘Supposed’ to be. Which would be fine if it was just her body, or if it was an 11-year-old daughter of hers, but she’s complaining about other grown women not conforming to HER standards. If she’s really bothered by this, I guess she shouldn’t take her sons to beaches, pools, or amusement parks, because they’ll see this much and more skin there.

  31. Annika says:

    I agree that females are overly sexualized in ads & other forms of media but…..isn’t it your job to teach your children about that & anything else they may encounter in life? As a parent, you are a teacher for your children.
    Why have kids if you don’t wanna teach them about life on this planet?

  32. lunchcoma says:

    I have mixed feelings about these statements. I think it’s unfortunate that pop stars feel pressured to sell their sexuality to sell their albums. I don’t have all that much sympathy for the “What about the children?” protests, though. Not everyone has chosen to raise their children with the same conservative dress standards that Mayim has, and I don’t know that children are harmed by this material. I’m leaning more toward thinking that part of Mayim’s parenting process is explaining to her kids how different people make different choices about nudity and sexuality, and where her family’s values fall on that spectrum.

    (Also, I think it’s kind of a jerky move to know someone’s name and not do a 30 second Google search to find out who they are. It sounds like Mayim probably knows, in which case it’s rude to hold Ariana up as a nobody. And goodness, now I’ve just defended Ariana Grande. This must be Backwards Day.)

  33. Al says:

    Just because she chooses to live an oppressive life by getting crushed under the interminable burden of backward fundamentalism, it doesn’t mean that the rest of us cannot enjoy the beauty of the human physique and sensual imagery.

    Beauty is to be shared. It is unnatural to conceal or hide it. And Masters of Sex is a great show that handles the very beginnings of the sexual revolution in the US. There is nothing manipulative, dangerous or lecherous about it.

    I think these fundamentalists should keep it to themselves and not be so willing to share their inane opinions with the rest of us. She is book-smart, but that doesn’t change the fact that these measures and images, which she is uncomfortable with, are also some of those things that make the Western world much different than many of the backward places of the world, where women are not even allowed to become journalists or columnists, stating their opinions just because they feel they have to.

    • Annika says:

      I hear ya but just wanted to point out that she is not a Dugger-style fundamentalist but an orthodox Jew.

      • scylla74 says:

        Who are also fundamentalists. Google them! Fundamentalists exist in every religion. Esp. if they are monotheistic.

  34. Lia says:

    “I disagree that it is slut shaming. She is making a valid point. Women as sexual objects is so deeply ingrained in our society that most women in those ads are not empowered. Girls are taught from a very young age that being sexy and attractive is only equivalent to having the perfect body and showing it off. These young women believe they are “empowered” because they are choosing to be photographed this way but is it really empowerment when that is the only option that will earn them acclaim? Honestly, do we as a culture, celebrate women of science, industry, power, intelligence? Can you truly say these “empowered” young women have other options to achieve the same level of fame?”

    ^^^ while I agree that the hyper sexualization of women and girls is dehumanizing, an overt expression of sexuality in any form is not the problem. Our extremely narrow beauty standards, and extremely narrow allowance for sexual expression is the real problem. Liberation is about choices. It’s no more liberating for conservative religions to shame young women into conservative clothing than it is to pressure young women into skimpy clothing. They’re two sides of the same coin. Furthermore, passive aggressive, “I don’t even know who this pathetic girl is” and concern trolling are all about judging another woman’s choices, and shed zero light on the male domination of beauty and sexuality, which is the real problem. It’s just intellectually lazy.

    • lunchcoma says:

      The “I don’t even know who this pathetic girl is” angle was where I stopped thinking that it might be one particular person talking from her experience as someone making a choice that goes against cultural norms and started to think that there’s something unlikable going on. Mayim Bialik isn’t cloistered away somewhere avoiding the media and society. She lives in the modern world and appears on one of the most popular shows in the country (which itself has some problematic messages). If she can remember Ariana’s name, she can also google her.

  35. it'sjustblanche says:

    Amusing considering that there was a point when she was a teenager and was just starting to “blossom” that the producers of her show were working that “innocent nymphet” angle. It may have been less in your face 25 years ago, but it was still pretty obvious.

  36. Abbicci says:

    Mayim Bialik is an exceptionally well educated woman, I am calling BS that she can’t have a conversation about this with her children.

    How about ” Society has always held women as separate and having less value. Patriarchal society and religions have blamed women for the fall from Eden and only good for child baring, like human brood mares. Women have to fight every day to be taken seriously and to have equal rights, from cat calling on the street, rape and rape culture , sexual harassment at work, domestic violence, having dominion over our own bodies and a myriad of other issues. That billboard is just an extension of so many female ideals society holds that are not realistic and are in fact harmful not just to women but to all of society, Those hostile and horrible attitudes towards women hold us back as a society, they stop us from growing and evolving. And that is why Mommy wants you to go to college so you have more options than being a meat puppet for other people’s expectations.”

    There problem solved. Your move, Mayim Bialik

    • sigh((s)) says:

      I’d like to see you try this on a 6 year old. Or even an 8 year old. She has young children. They learn through seeing and through their experiences in everyday life. They don’t have a concept of or frame of reference for female objectification on a global scale.

      • Abbicci says:

        Worked just fine when my sister and brother in law used it on my nieces. It works when the parents make the effort. Every kid is different so every conversation is different but you have to make the effort. Instead of it being about one pop star on one billboard. if we don’t try having these conversations kids grow up just accepting the status quo, you can teach your kids that little pop star has to do that to sell records. Once you see the man behind the curtain, the magic gets lost and maybe your kids wont find sexist selling techniques acceptable.

        Look how fast creepy Robin Thicke fell once people starting calling his act creepy, sexist and stalkerish. Once you start calling it out it starts to lose acceptability.

      • lunchcoma says:

        “People dress lots of different ways. Sometimes it’s because their school tells them what to wear, sometimes it’s because they’re copying grown ups or their friends, sometimes it’s because their religion tells them what to wear, and sometimes people just wear what they like. Our family does [I’m guessing some mix of those last two] because [reasons].”

        Most younger people in the US, including Mayim herself, grew up with images of adult sexuality and had to learn about these issues gradually. Mayim’s kids can too.

  37. Majicou says:

    Standards of dress have always been evolving and people have always complained about them. If someone feels that women are too overexposed, they can always go to some place where burkas cover everything.

    • Ennie says:

      probably, but I think the point is that in ads, sex sells, so nudity=sex.
      we in the western world claim that wearing shorts or tank tops are not with a sexual objective, we short wearers, are not selling ourselves, opposite to these suggestive ads.
      There are healthy societies where nudity is very common, families can walk around naked on beaches, or people suntan nude in certain public places, a and I think is great, but one should be able to choose to go.
      In a beach town nearby, they held an impromptu contest for a “sexy bikini girl” or something like that, and the 2 finalists were dancing like strippers and ended up naked in broad daylight and with a public made up of a lot of children, whose parents were probably there or were unaware and careless. I think very, very low of these type of events. Disgusting. The parents were idiots, and the organizers should have been more careful with the audience.

    • Monksolo says:

      no… I think we’d be happy if they just wore some pants or something, thank you.

  38. Irishserra says:

    I agree that these ads won’t go away anytime soon, but that’s because people don’t want to think, they want to feel. And that is just what Mayim’s point is.

  39. Dommy Dearest says:

    Gonna weigh in here. I’m 25 now which means my childhood was through the 90s and early 2000s. I’m positive there were sexualized ads on full display but honestly I don’t remember them. I didn’t wear makeup until the end of 7th grade and I didn’t wear tighter clothes until 8th grade. Nothing I saw on tv, movies or magazines made me want to dress that way. It was my peers. I saw the popular girls wore makeup and wore the American Eagle, hollister, Abercrombie & Fitch and in my want to be accepted I did the same. Went into 9th grade and then started having sex, started reading Cosmo. My mother sheltered me somewhat but it was my peers that caused the change from knowing nothing about sex to having it and the like. So all I can say is: be a parent and talk to your kids. Movies, tv and magazines are not the actual reality kids grow up in and they can (I assure you) tell the difference between Hollywood and real life. There are exceptions such as the kids that try to emulate their favorite stars (I developed an eating disorder from gym and dance class as well as seeing how glamorous and ‘perfect’ MK Olsen and Richie were) but if you’re a hands on parent and can talk to your kid then it will go way more smoothly than parents that aren’t (and all the people that post that have kids on here seem like they are decent people and parents so.)

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      This is pretty much what I argue on every thread where commenters blame music, movies, books, whatever, for kids not having values.

      I listened to “bad music” with misogynistic lyrics like heavy metal and rap growing up, but I always had a clear idea of how I deserve to be treated as a woman and I always knew that I was a feminist. Why? Because my parents were involved, they talked to my brother and I, they cared. True, we were really lucky, but it doesn’t change the fact that music, movies, and other forms of media are not solely responsible for shaping our children’s perspectives–it starts at home.

      • Dommy Dearest says:

        Everything starts at home. Racism, morals, ethics. If the parents want a child that’s going to be polite and have manners then they have to teach them that. They can’t rely on television to do so otherwise we’d have children running around that amount to the Kardashians. My daughter is 3 1/2 years old and has manners that older children do not possess. It’s because I taught her them. Parents can blame television, movies, songs all they like for why their children have no respect for anyone but it falls back on them ultimately. No, not all kids will fit the mold even if the parents try their hardest to teach them what’s appropriate and what’s not. But the amount of blame I’ve seen parents place on everything but themselves is awful.

        I worked in childcare for three and a half years so I can say some of it is a generation issue. These days parents don’t want to hear about their kids having problems but want to hear that they are perfect angels. There was a child in one of my classes, three years old, that was biting and hitting his classmates. I told the parent and then the parent went back and complained to our director. I got told not to tell the parents anything negative and got moved out of the class because of it. To me that only starts the process of allowing the child to be excused for bad behavior and begins the process of there being discipline issues later on. Yeah he was three but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be held accountable for his actions that were as basic as hitting (biting I know is a stage).

  40. Ginger says:

    Try living in Vegas. If you’ve been here you know what sort’s of billboards are out there. My son and I have already discussed these since he’s old enough to know and ask questions. I just give him my opinion and hope it sinks in. In this day and age with you tube and such things on the Internet, kids are going to see things at a much earlier age unless you are a complete computer control freak. And even then, kids will more than likely still see things at a friends house. I admit to controlling things for my son as long as I was able to but there comes a time when they are just going to see things they may not understand yet. I just try to make sure my child is armed with information. We discuss morality in honest conversations. There’s just not much more you can do really unless you want to blindfold your child until they’re 30.

  41. Yuck says:

    I hate Ariana Grande too. Nothing to do with anything else but Ariana Grande

  42. Monksolo says:

    We all have to live in this society and people have a right to ask for some modesty in the public sphere without others taking it personally. If you had to pass by a billboard every day with me on it –in that outfit– I think you’d understand the point I’m making here.

  43. Suzy from Ontario says:

    Great post Lia!
    Wish there were like/dislike buttons we could click on comments!

  44. JenniferJustice says:

    I read this thread into the week hours last night and came back on this morning simply to say this is one of the most enlightening discussions I have ever been privy to on this subject. I may not agree with some people’s thoughts on this sensitive subject, but it is definitely a learning experience to hear other perspectives and worded so eloquently. This is one of the best conversation sites on the web. I feel blessed to have access to all of your thoughts. You make up a broad range of intellegent and articulate opinions. Thanks to all for sharing your viewpoints.

  45. caitrin says:

    Orthodox Judaism is VERY patriarchal—with men setting *all* the rules for what a woman may and may not wear, how she is to behave, and how she is to present herself in both public and private settings. Interesting to me that one so firmly steeped in such a strictly sexist religion complains of a male dominated society, when her religion and culture demands such subservience of her to men. She wants, herself, to control how women dress and behave, and wishes the sexism of MEN didn’t have such a central hand in the exploitation and manipulation and mindset of women. A little short sighted for one who voluntarily lives in obedience to such a chauvinistic religion as Orthodox Judaism.
    Plus, as many others have said, she’s in BBT. SHE may not show lots of skin (or any) but she apparently has no problem with her co-stars doing so (especially Kaley Cucoco, or whatever her name is.) So she is contributing to the very problem she’s complaining about: the sexual objectification of women. For God’s sakes, she’s in a Chuck Lorre show!! To me, that makes her self righteous, hypocritical, and not a very thoughtful (or self aware) human being.

  46. nathan says:

    nothing a bag over the head won’t fix