Posts by B Jones
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Jville mall used to be flasher than it is now, yet it didn't destroy city retailing. Once upon a time there was a branch of James Smith's, when that was Kirk's principal rival. It got radically redeveloped in the 90s and for a while was a classic Westfield writ small, with appliances, two bookstores and the standard women's clothing retailers. It's fallen into 2 dollar shopdom in recent years. It's very well served with train and bus transport, and no harder to get to by car than Porirua or the Hutt. It's just a bit hemmed in by major roads to expand too much further.
Disclaimer: worked there as a student for several years
-
Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys, in reply to Sam Vilain,
It does have that feel about it, doesn't it? Maybe it's just all those Swedish lawyers' names and the different prosecutorial system.
-
Sorry if someone else has already asked this, but half the time on my android phone the text looks enormous and unshrinkable (have to turn it sideways to read 90% of a comment line, and half the time it resizes appropriately. Anyone know what I'm doing wrong? Or perhaps what the site is doing wrong? It seemed to improve once I'd signed in.
-
Up Front: That's Inappropriate!, in reply to Martin Lindberg,
I walked past this movie poster
I've been seeing that from the bus and quietly fuming at its implications (no idea whether the movie lives down to my expectations or not). It kind of primed the motor of outrage that got started up by the Newlands thing.
One of the things that gets me about the whole business is that I had, especially at school, a sort of slut-resistant coating. I don't think I've ever been called one, even in my black anklezip jeans phase. It was partly luck and discretion, but mainly a total goody two shoes swot persona. It's the persona, not the behaviour, that people are judged on. Being cocky, obstreperous, a bit working class and female fits so closely to the slut persona that what you actually get up to with the opposite sex is barely relevant.
-
Dude, you can't infer anything about a 14 year old's sex life from the length of skirt she wears. Any adult asking a 14 year old about their sex life based on their clothing would get and deserve something a little more emphatic than "whatever." Perhaps Craig could supply something nice and purple for the occasion.
-
So first year women more commonly have sex with lots of members of the opposite sex than first year men? Or that the women who do it fall into the definition of promiscuous more than men? I don't understand.
-
Hang on a tick – the Skirt in Question did cover the girl’s upper thighs. It left her lower thighs showing, though.
And yeah, you do need to define promiscuity. How many is too many? What about the rare teenage couple that gets together at 16 and then happily raise three children? What about the careful serial monogamists who like Pascalle West are tops of their class at contraception? For what it's worth, I don't have any problem with either, providing the participants treat each other fairly.
-
Right now society has determined 16 to be the age of consent. 18 is for alcohol and voting.
-
So Tess, when parents don't have issues with the way their kids dress, teachers should step in and tell the kids how to dress for them? What about when parents don't want their kids informed about how to keep themselves safe from sexually transmitted diseases?
-
Meanwhile Catholic schools in Quebec have a much more liberal definition of what is too short (10cm above the kneecap). Meanwhile I'm sure most of us agree that showing one's hair isn't slutty, but in some countries they disagree. Sluttitude is in the eye of the beholder. Me, I prefer to reject the category than argue about what belongs in it or not.