The bias of a parent passed to their child.

That sounds so terrible but what America did was start Welfare.
It sounded good.

But the end result was that in the Black families 25% unwed mothers are now 73%, and the cities are packed with bastards kids who will also be Wlfare next generation.
The Child Abuse suffered by the Black kids is almost total at 73%.
It is far worse that he domestic problems to which you refer.

The segregation sounds terrible, but now these bastard kids live in the crime filled inner cities where they, themselves do 70% of all the violent crimes.
They fail school where they drop out at 70% before graduating.
They suffer every kind of child abuse.
Consider these FACTS:

CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census).
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. (Source:\hich\af39\dbch\af31505\loch\f39 Center for Disease Control).
80% of rapist motivated by displaced anger come from fatherless homes. (Source: Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 403-26).
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. (Source: National Principals A Report on the State of High Schools).
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. (Source: Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. Of Corrections, 1992).

These statistics translate to mean that children from fatherless homes are:
5 times more likely to commit suicide
32 times more likely to run away
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
14 times more likely to commit rape
9 times more likely to drop out of high school
20 times more likely to end up in prison

Children from "fatherless families of single mother" homes are*:
15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
4.6 times more likely to commit suicide
6.6 times more likely to become teenaged mothers
24.3 times more likely to run away
15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions
10.8 times more likely to commit rape
6.6 times more likely to drop out of school
15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenage
73% of adolescent murderers come from mother only homes

Daughters who live in mother only homes are 92% more likely to divorce**

 

Remember that Gays do not care about modesty.
They do not believe or do not care to believe that the bastard kids we model for as adults behave uncivil and work to destroy society.
People just do not want to see how their examples set up FAIL for what was a successful nation.

 

What about the kids who want to act adult and watch what we do, saying we the example of adult behavior?

Public sex sound fine for adults who know not to get preg or sick.
Fine.
But does it teach kids that they should be sexually unrestrained, have unwed babies, need 1.2 million abortions every year in a country that has only 1.5 million legitimate babies???

What about the Child Abuse to the Welfare babies?
What about the violent crime rates at 70%, caused by fatherless kids raised by single mothers?

 

You speak for all gay people now?

 

But this is what a sexually promiscuous society grows into.
The clothes reveal more and skin, and developing more and more contacts with possible sex partners or interested people who are attracted by the invitation to see them as sex objects.

 

Sexual promiscuity is one of the factors in what Gays call "The Life."

But I refer to the Statistics that say these things.

 

Yes, women have change things and now, they must also feed themselves and their kids, because they have no husbands.
Welfare mentality lies that they can work and get equal pay and be just like the men.

But no one ever told them that there ONLY so many jobs around.
Today, women have doubled the Unskilled Labor Force and salaries are half what they ought be, due to Supply and Demand economics.
Now, employers hire the husband and the wife, or they hire single people too poor to get married, and pay 1/2 the wages which would have been paid.

What we get/got was Day Care, kids raised by part time parents, two job mothers, and little more that high Welfare costs because that actually pays better than working:

Average Welfare recipient gets $40,000+ per year
September 18, 2013 by Harold Bray

Earlier this year Pennsylvania state officials traveled to the libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute, in search of a solution to a dilemma that most states have.
The dilemma, they said, was they could not find a way to transition welfare recipients to work. The average welfare recipient gets (ooops, I almost wrote “earned”) $45,000 per year in benefits, they said, and has low work skills and little job history.

http://halfwaytoconcord.com/average-welfare-recipient-gets-40000-per-year/

 

Some women never wear bras, therefore might not even own one. The choice of shirt may have nothing to do with the wearing or not wearing of a bra.
Some women for medical reasons ( shoulder tendonitis, for example) are medically advised to not wear a bra.
Some women raised in the 60s & 70s have never worn them, as they were then considered passe & un-necessary, unstylish & un-cool.
I am just 1 person, there are probably many other reasons I can't think of or remember, that others might.

 

Adhering to "social norms" not defined by laws but custom, is entirely up to the individual.And I do not agree that "caring what other people think is a pretty important part of being a good person." That seems quite ridiculous to me. Ditto not swearing in front of strangers. Absurdly archaic. I may care what my family thinks, but by & large the opinions of others are irrelevant. Being a good person is an individual thing, it's about you not others.
And while your comparison regarding making love to your wife in public is both cute & funny, there is one significant difference. As far as I know, in most places public nudity & public sex are against the law.

 

Blah blah blah seen it all before it still means Jack (*)(*)(*)(*)

 

I agree, it is up to the individual. Doesn't mean doing stuff won't get you called out, nor should it.

You shouldn't swear in front of strangers bro. If basic manners are old school IRL, I guess I'm wise beyond my years.

If the opinions of others are irrelevant, then it shouldn't bother you when someone takes offense. Deal with it.

 

You see what happens when people make assumptions? He assumed based on some of your posts that you were a promiscuous single dude. I didn't do that, although it might be been an easy assumption to make. I read your profile & know that you state that you are married, which changed my perspective of you & your opinions & perspective.

 

didn't have to? or were careful not to?

seriously, why should a woman who's sufficiently motivated to breastfeed (in a world increasingly feeding kids chemicals in plastic bottles) have to even spend a nanosecond of thought on whether it might or might not offend. that an innocent and helpless baby taking nourishment is even remotely problematic speaks very poorly of societies in which this is the case. if the future health, wellbeing, and sound development of our children is LESS important than pandering to the fetishes of oddballs, then I'd suggest we're sunk.

in an aside, I'm horribly offended by formula feeders, yet they do it all the time in public.

 

That's correct.. Some women don't wear bras or don't need one.. but going braless in a see-thru blouse is just tacky.

 

I agree with you, regarding that last sentence. As long as they don't get crazy/violent while being offended, they are as entitled to their opinion as I am to mine. That is kind of the whole point of being in a free country.

 

good god you're clueless, dave. and I say that with some affection.

I know MANY gay families, and their kids aren't the ones binge drinking and having sex at 13. those kids belong to your precious conservatives.

 

More tacky than wearing one, with a bra? To me that is tacky, just like those nasty "gansta-jeans", where you can be the guy's underwear. But my opinion & yours are our own & in a free country, we both have a right to our own opinion. Ain't liberty wonderful?

 

skin is only sexual if someone teaches young people that it's naughty, so they never learn the difference between innocent skin and sex skin. there is a world of difference between someone like myself wearing a vest, no bra, and shorts (to work in the garden on a hot summer evening), and someone deliberately sexualising her appearance while wearing a bra and with legs and arms covered. if you can't tell the difference then your maturity is of a gross kind, and needs work.

 

I have been all over the world and I like nude beaches as well as the next person, but showing your in the mall is tacky.............

 

I'm not old enough to have been influenced by the 60/70's bra-burnings, but I choose not to wear them because they're a bizarre anachronism - especially on those who don't physically need them (like me). I eschew makeup and hair dye for the same reasons, and because I can't abide the idea of hiding behind a mask that doesn't look like me. If someone doesn't like the way I ACTUALLY look - they can take a hike. I don't shave legs or armpits for the same reason (but I ain't very hairy, so not much of a statement there). The unexpected irony, incidentally, is that on women my age, no makeup looks younger than lots of makeup. It's the 'trying too hard' factor, I guess.

edited to add that my own resistance to artifice is as much a vanity as is dependence upon artifice. I just happen to prefer a vanity which allows the honesty of existing exactly as I am.

 

You did say "working in your garden", not showing your breasts at the Mall.

 

indeed. I live in a vast, mountainous forest, too. not many passers-by

seriously though, boobs-out at the mall depends entirely on context. that's pretty much what I was saying at the start of this thread. if a woman such as myself wears utilitarian clothing (not overtly sexual) and no bra, or a young woman breastfeeds, then it's non-sexual context. a woman highlighting her breasts without function is sexualising them. it's not for us to know who she does this for - could even be for herself. still, it's not something I'd ever do, nor would I like to see my daughter doing it. conversely, I DID breastfeed in public, and encourage my daughter to do the same when her turn comes.

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'a bizarre anachronism", OMFG I totally love that expression! The best definition of a bra, EVER!!! Bravo! Interesting your mention of those who don't need them. The whole idea that larger busted women "need" them, is not medically founded whatsoever. In fact, some studies indicate there may be a link between the wearing of bras & breast cancer. And here's a study that shows that bars actually INCREASE sagging, rather than the illusion of a decrease that you see while wearing them: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/259073.php

I rarely use makeup because of allergies, but I do colour my hair. But I agree with you about vanity, it is such a waste of time.

 

Spoken from a position of ignorance.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

my larger boobed buddies tell me they 'need' them because the bounce is uncomfortable. I don't think buxom women need them for aesthetic reasons, not at all. there is nothing less beautiful than the wonderful human form forced into unnatural shapes. whether that's silicon boobs, 'shape wear', high heels, girdles, bras, whatever.

PS: I gave up the hair dye some years ago. I figured I wasn't fooling anyone.