NationStates Jolt Archive

There are protests in South Africa by women due to to outrage after a Woman was attacked for allegedly wearing a miniskirt...

Hundreds of South African women are holding a protest at a Johannesburg taxi rank, where a woman was sexually assaulted for wearing a miniskirt.

Nwabisa Ngcukana, 25, was allegedly attacked by a group of taxi-drivers and street hawkers, who said she was indecently dressed.

The taxi drivers shouted insults at the women, some of whom wore miniskirts.

Passers-by reportedly laughed and cheered when Ms Ngcukana was assaulted last month.

"What we want to highlight is that women have rights - they have the right to choose what to wear," said Nonhlanhla Mokeona from the People Opposing Women Abuse (Powa) organisation.

She urged men to take part in the protest, to show they supported women's rights.

During Friday's march, some of the women exposed their thighs and breasts - a traditional form of protest in Africa amongst those who consider themselves powerless.

A group of taxi-drivers called the protesters "prostitutes" and then some also pulled down their trousers to show their buttocks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7276654.stm

In one state here in Venezuela, famous for its beaches, there are big signs that warn women this:

"It is your fault if you get raped by wearing too provocative clothes. Protect yourself by covering your body. Do not provoke rapists and abusers with too revealing bikinis"

Quite a progressive country, we are turning into.

They should do a sting operation to catch all these guys.
Get a woman to wear a miniskirt except the woman also has a chainsaw behind her, she pulls it out at the sight of trouble, and rips them a new one.

Or they have snipers in position around her, to kill off all those guys, so any time a guy sees a woman they run like hell and don't look back.:)

Gods we went through this sort of thing decades ago, how far behind is South Africa now? i mean really, the fashion industry is to blame, thus i hate fashion thus my clothes are of poor quality.

She urged men to take part in the protest, to show they supported women's rights.

During Friday's march, some of the women exposed their thighs and breasts
That is all the encouragement men need to come and participate.:D

They should do a sting operation to catch all these guys.
Get a woman to wear a miniskirt except the woman also has a chainsaw behind her, she pulls it out at the sight of trouble, and rips them a new one.

Or they have snipers in position around her, to kill off all those guys, so any time a guy sees a woman they run like hell and don't look back.:)

Gods we went through this sort of thing decades ago, how far behind is South Africa now? i mean really, the fashion industry is to blame, thus i hate fashion thus my clothes are of poor quality.
The fashion industry is to blame :O
I blame the wannabe fashion police

Freaky, I invoked an almost identical hypothetical scenario about a month back to counter the people who said that republishing the cartoons of Mohammed was bigotry. Clearly the women of South Africa are listening to my every word. ;)

Seriously though, good for them.

*give rapists the fig*

Is the world not silly?

And the world watches as South Africa regresses into the darkness of the rest of the continent, never again to be the prosperous sucessful Western state it once was.

And the world watches as South Africa regresses into the darkness of the rest of the continent, never again to be the prosperous sucessful Western state it once was.

South Africa was prosperous?

South Africa was prosperous?

Comparatively, in Africa.

World-wide? Not so much.

Wow...did the government put up that sign or was it just some guy

Yeah, that sign is pretty inexcusable. In fact, the whole "She was asking for it because of her clothes!" argument is pretty disgusting.

In one state here in Venezuela, famous for its beaches, there are big signs that warn women this:

"It is your fault if you get raped by wearing too provocative clothes. Protect yourself by covering your body. Do not provoke rapists and abusers with too revealing bikinis"

Quite a progressive country, we are turning into.

Wow...did the government put up that sign or was it just some guy

Yeah, that sign is pretty inexcusable. In fact, the whole "She was asking for it because of her clothes!" argument is pretty disgusting.

Yeah, it's like walking into a store and robbing it, then blaming the owner for having nice things for sale... I like that analogy, I should copyright it

The fashion industry is to blame :O
I blame the wannabe fashion police

fashion police?
Smash the state!
I can picture it now;
"Man is towed away for wearing baggy trousers by skinny fashion model".
"Police uniforms are now far more revealing than they used to be".
"Batons are also banned from police stations for fears of sitting on them".
"People met with poor 'fashion sense' as ordained by the nearest fashion bible i mean magazine will be punished with impunity and with reckless force of tarring and lots of those dinky confetti things".
"Latest uproar in court follows an argument between a police officer and a fashion model, one claiming the defendant's conduct was breaching the peace, the fashion model denies this claim due to the nature of the suit worn at the time"

South Africa was prosperous?

For whites, yes. For everyone else, not so much. Things have always sucked in South Africa, basically.

That is all the encouragement men need to come and participate.:D
Yep, something nekkid and a beer...


Hey, if a white South African friend of mine gets his US citizenship, can I introduce him as African-American?

I thought that South Africa was really going places, like out of the third world moral nightmare that it had been stuck in. Now I am pretty sure that they aren't.

Yep, something nekkid and a beer...


Hey, if a white South African friend of mine gets his US citizenship, can I introduce him as African-American?

I think you'd have to.

I thought that South Africa was really going places, like out of the third world moral nightmare that it had been stuck in. Now I am pretty sure that they aren't.


Well, the fact that women are protesting this and not being rounded up and thrown in jail/raped means that they are in fact better than every other nation on the continent and most developing nations out there.

Also, the government is prosecuting the offenders (or are looking for them). The government seems to be trying to be civilized, its just the jerk off taxi drivers and their supporters saying such enlightened things like "women have too many rights!" that are making South Africa look bad.

I think you'd have to.
Charlize Theron is my favourite African-American actress.

Well, the fact that women are protesting this and not being rounded up and thrown in jail/raped means that they are in fact better than every other nation on the continent and most developing nations out there.

Also, the government is prosecuting the offenders (or are looking for them). The government seems to be trying to be civilized, its just the jerk off taxi drivers and their supporters saying such enlightened things like "women have too many rights!" that are making South Africa look bad.

Well, they're better than most of the continent, but that doesn't mean that they're doing great in this area. It's good that the government isn't getting in the way of this protest, but it takes a change in the opinions of the people to achieve change, and apparently they don't really have that yet.

Hey, if a white South African friend of mine gets his US citizenship, can I introduce him as African-American?

Depends.

Are you trying to be a jerk? Are you deliberately ignoring the defintion of the phrase?

Are you trying to be a jerk? Are you deliberately ignoring the defintion of the phrase?

Knowing the poster in question, hes probably just trolling.

Depends.

Are you trying to be a jerk? Are you deliberately ignoring the defintion of the phrase?
If I did it, I'd be trying to draw attention to how silly a phrase it is.

Yes, a silly PC phrase that the OED Online dates back to 1855. :rolleyes:
Shakespeare made up some silly words, too. Are they good because they're old?

And I didn't say PC. I just said silly.

African-American is etymologuically imprecise because it apparently doesn't cover some Americans from Africa, but it does purport to describe people who are uncountably many generations removed from Africa.

If I did it, I'd be trying to draw attention to how silly a phrase it is.

Yes, a silly PC phrase that the OED Online dates back to 1855. :rolleyes:

Shakespeare made up some silly words, too. Are they good because they're old?

I'm curious as to the identity of some of these silly words that have been used consistently since Shakespeare.

And I didn't say PC. I just said silly.

African-American is etymologuically imprecise because it apparently doesn't cover some Americans from Africa, but it does purport to describe people who are uncountably many generations removed from Africa.

What is more etymologically correct? "Black" for people who aren't really the color black?

What is more etymologically correct? "Black" for people who aren't really the color black?
At least it deals with the relevant characteristic.

Negro would probably be even better. Since you're describing a racial group, why not deal with the racial characteristics?

If I did it, I'd be trying to draw attention to how silly a phrase it is.
It's an incredibly silly way of describing a person of the Negro race. The silliest use I ever saw was when a poor actress was describing her return from somewhere in Africa and she wanted to describe black Africans in a different way than white Africans.

She couldn't just say black African... She could use the term African, either. So she settled on African-American Africans to describe black Africans.

If we're going to insist on hyphenating Americans, let's at least be consistent. If White is a good enough euphemism for Caucasian, then Black is a perfectly suitable euphemism for Negro.

By the way, Cat-Tribe, the OED only attributes modern usage to 1969. So it isn't really that old of a phrase as it applies to all people of Negro heritage.

In one state here in Venezuela, famous for its beaches, there are big signs that warn women this:

"It is your fault if you get raped by wearing too provocative clothes. Protect yourself by covering your body. Do not provoke rapists and abusers with too revealing bikinis"

Quite a progressive country, we are turning into.

Holy. Fucking. Shit.

i mean really, the fashion industry is to blame, thus i hate fashion thus my clothes are of poor quality.

Don't you mean you dress badly because you're poor and you have no fashion sense? :p

I'm curious as to the identity of some of these silly words that have been used consistently since Shakespeare.


An English teacher told me Shakespeare invented the word "weird

At least it deals with the relevant characteristic.

Negro would probably be even better. Since you're describing a racial group, why not deal with the racial characteristics?

Uhh, you realise that "Negro" is the word for the colour "black" in Spanish?

Personally I'd say my heritage is "Hungarian-Bulgarian-German-Welsh-English", "Hungarian-Australian" or "European". I'm more than "white", and I'm certainly not "blanco" (Spanish for white). I just am.

Most people I know don't use the word "black" in a derogatory manner. In fact, most people I know with dark skin (including Indians) tend to say they're "black". But... I don't think that people who aren't of African descent should be deciding what people of African descent should be called. I wouldn't like it if you were to decide what Hungarian-Bulgarian-German-Welsh-English-European-Australians should be called.

I thought that South Africa was really going places, like out of the third world moral nightmare that it had been stuck in. Now I am pretty sure that they aren't.

LOL.

If one little incident means a country isn't "going places", most countries would be going BACKWARD.

Just LOOK at the USA!

In one state here in Venezuela, famous for its beaches, there are big signs that warn women this:

"It is your fault if you get raped by wearing too provocative clothes. Protect yourself by covering your body. Do not provoke rapists and abusers with too revealing bikinis"

Quite a progressive country, we are turning into.

I wonder what would happen if someone put a sign outside Chavez's residence that goes:

"It's your fault if you get us attacked by saying too provocative words."

Don't you mean you dress badly because you're poor and you have no fashion sense? :p

An English teacher told me Shakespeare invented the word "weird
Uhh, you realise that "Negro" is the word for the colour "black" in Spanish?
Personally I'd say my heritage is "Hungarian-Bulgarian-German-Welsh-English", "Hungarian-Australian" or "European". I'm more than "white", and I'm certainly not "blanco" (Spanish for white). I just am.
Most people I know don't use the word "black" in a derogatory manner. In fact, most people I know with dark skin (including Indians) tend to say they're "black". But... I don't think that people who aren't of African descent should be deciding what people of African descent should be called. I wouldn't like it if you were to decide what Hungarian-Bulgarian-German-Welsh-English-European-Australians should be called.
You cheeky fucker!:p
It's because i'm too busy living my life too worry about how i look, which is how i've always been. Then again i have poor taste in clothing, but well it doesn't matter here, fortunately.
i've got a name for Hungarian-Bulgarian-German-Welsh-English-European-Australians, well travelled.

fashion police?
Smash the state!
I can picture it now;
"Man is towed away for wearing baggy trousers by skinny fashion model".
"Police uniforms are now far more revealing than they used to be".
"Batons are also banned from police stations for fears of sitting on them".
"People met with poor 'fashion sense' as ordained by the nearest fashion bible i mean magazine will be punished with impunity and with reckless force of tarring and lots of those dinky confetti things".
"Latest uproar in court follows an argument between a police officer and a fashion model, one claiming the defendant's conduct was breaching the peace, the fashion model denies this claim due to the nature of the suit worn at the time"

No :P I mean fashion police like people who try to control what others wear. But LOL

In one state here in Venezuela, famous for its beaches, there are big signs that warn women this:

"It is your fault if you get raped by wearing too provocative clothes. Protect yourself by covering your body. Do not provoke rapists and abusers with too revealing bikinis"

Quite a progressive country, we are turning into.

Where do I sign up, sounds like a fun beach.

Where do I sign up, sounds like a fun beach.

Beware of the anti-rape condoms. They hurt like a b****.

Wow...did the government put up that sign or was it just some guy

The governor of the Carabobo state, using tax money, of course. It is an official policy in that state.

I wonder what would happen if someone put a sign outside Chavez's residence that goes:

"It's your fault if you get us attacked by saying too provocative words."

As long it is not payed with my money as a contributor, I don't care.

Where do I sign up, sounds like a fun beach.

Oh, I went to the beach, dressed in my usual white, short bikini.

However, I was a coward. I had a gun at arm's reach.

Oh, I went to the beach, dressed in my usual white, short bikini.

However, I was a coward. I had a gun at arm's reach.

Me too, but I think we had them for the exact opposite reasons...

Me too, but I think we had them for the exact opposite reasons...

At the beach? You had a gun for...?

At the beach? You had a gun for...?

...uhhh...gun? who said I had a gun?

...uhhh...gun? who said I had a gun?

You had a white short bikini?

Gun, slang for...?

edit:
Or the white short bikini.


I'm still confused on how a bikini can be short, I thought they were all pretty much the same, and the gun just makes for more fun!

At the beach? You had a gun for...?

Gun, slang for...?

edit:
Or the white short bikini.

I'm still confused on how a bikini can be short, I thought they were all pretty much the same, and the gun just makes for more fun!

There are bikinis that cover more than others. My reference to "short" meant that it covered not too much as others. Sorry about my sloppy english, it is not my first language.

You had a white short bikini?

Yes.

There are bikinis that cover more than others. My reference to "short" meant that it covered not too much as others. Sorry about my sloppy english, it is not my first language.

Don't worry about it. He's just messing with you. Now about that bikini.....you should totally post pics.

RhynoDD;13503616']Don't worry about it. He's just messing with you. Now about that bikini.....you should totally post pics.

Only if it's camel toe

RhynoDD;13503616']Don't worry about it. He's just messing with you. Now about that bikini.....you should totally post pics.

Never.

Only if it's camel toe

What's a camel toe?

RhynoDD;13503616']Don't worry about it. He's just messing with you. Now about that bikini.....you should totally post pics.

Only if it's camel toe

I am messing with you, yes you should post pics, and it doesn't matter if it's camel toe, it's still sexy...

Never.
:(



What's a camel toe?

Somehow, I knew this was coming. Flaming Butt Pirate, I'll leave this one to you.

What's a camel toe?
This (http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/page/cameltoe-8101.jpg)
or this (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/56/120799851_38e5cfc46f.jpg)

questions?

Not really, pretty clear.

Never seen one of those around here

This (http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/page/cameltoe-8101.jpg)
or this (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/56/120799851_38e5cfc46f.jpg)

questions?
Or this. (http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?RhynoD)

Not really, pretty clear.

Never seen one of those around here

which one? and what's your first language?

Never.

What's a camel toe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameltoe

Most people I know don't use the word "black" in a derogatory manner. In fact, most people I know with dark skin (including Indians) tend to say they're "black".
Really? All the Indians I know describe themselves as Brown.

Let's just stick with the colours - they're value-neutral. We just have to get the Yellows and the Reds to agree. :cool:

which one? and what's your first language?

Camel toe bikinis.

Español/Spanish

Camel toe bikinis.

Español/Spanish

it's not so much the bikini as what happens when you where it.

and I know what Español is, but I asked because that way I could link this (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel_toe) for you to see, that way not too much is lost in translation.

<snip>
So I've heard that you're Jewdacus.

At least it deals with the relevant characteristic.

Negro would probably be even better. Since you're describing a racial group, why not deal with the racial characteristics?

It's an incredibly silly way of describing a person of the Negro race. The silliest use I ever saw was when a poor actress was describing her return from somewhere in Africa and she wanted to describe black Africans in a different way than white Africans.

She couldn't just say black African... She could use the term African, either. So she settled on African-American Africans to describe black Africans.

If we're going to insist on hyphenating Americans, let's at least be consistent. If White is a good enough euphemism for Caucasian, then Black is a perfectly suitable euphemism for Negro.

By the way, Cat-Tribe, the OED only attributes modern usage to 1969. So it isn't really that old of a phrase as it applies to all people of Negro heritage.

1. It is hard to see how Spanish and Portugese for "black" is etymologically superior to "black" to describe people who are shades of brown.

2. "Negro" and "African-American" do NOT have the same meaning.

OED Online says "African-American" means "An American (esp. a North American) of African origin; a black American."

"Negro" means "A member of a dark-skinned group of peoples originally native to sub-Saharan Africa; a person of black African origin or descent. In early use also applied to other dark-skinned peoples, esp. Moors."

So there are many people in the category of Negro that are not African-Americans. The terms aren't interchangeable.

3. The OED Online says specifically that although "African-American [was] widely used in the United States in the 19th century, the adoption of African-American as a preferred term among black Americans dates from the late 1960s and early 1970s." As always, the OED backs up its definitions with quotations. It gives examples of "African-American" being used in 1855, 1858, 1890, 1962, 1979, 1987, and 1997. So it's use as the preferred term is more recent, but it is simply not true to say it's usage dates to 1969.

4. Language has adapted over time. Neither of you can seriously claim that the term "African-American" is confusing. You are just being contrary -- at least that is the most charitable characterization of your objections.

4. Language has adapted over time. Neither of you can seriously claim that the term "African-American" is confusing. You are just being contrary -- at least that is the most charitable characterization of your objections.

Not necessarily. There are quite a few people who are white and were born and raised in Africa. If they were to move to the Americas, they'd have as much right to call themselves African-Americans as anyone else in their situation.

It's like claiming that all Europeans are necessarily white.

Although I'm not quite sure where my argument has brought me now.

Oh, right, well, some people are stupid and would imagine that African means that the person is automatically black. Some people are also stupid and would claim that European means that the person is automatically white.

Except that "African-American" has a definition that is distinct from simply "a American born or raised in Africa." If that were the definition of the phrase, then using it to refer to black Americans would be silly. But it isn't, so it is not.
And then there are all those black Americans that have a hard time tracing their ancestry to Africa. Yet, they are all lumped in with the African-American crowd. It's a poor euphemism.

What would the proper euphemism for Caucasians, by the way? We certainly aren't white, yet that seems acceptable. We also aren't all European-Americans, either.

Jewdacus is ignoring me. :(

2. "Negro" and "African-American" do NOT have the same meaning.

OED Online says "African-American" means "An American (esp. a North American) of African origin; a black American."

"Negro" means "A member of a dark-skinned group of peoples originally native to sub-Saharan Africa; a person of black African origin or descent. In early use also applied to other dark-skinned peoples, esp. Moors."



Seems darned close to me... But then I'm being difficult.

Not necessarily. There are quite a few people who are white and were born and raised in Africa. If they were to move to the Americas, they'd have as much right to call themselves African-Americans as anyone else in their situation.

It's like claiming that all Europeans are necessarily white.

Although I'm not quite sure where my argument has brought me now.

Oh, right, well, some people are stupid and would imagine that African means that the person is automatically black. Some people are also stupid and would claim that European means that the person is automatically white.

Except that "African-American" has a definition that is distinct from simply "a American born or raised in Africa." If that were the definition of the phrase, then using it to refer to black Americans would be silly. But it isn't, so it is not.

EDIT: Further if you want to get all technically huffy, there are those that object to using "American" to describe those that live in the United States or North America. How say Llewdor and Myrmidonisia on that?

Except that "African-American" has a definition that is distinct from simply "a American born or raised in Africa." If that were the definition of the phrase, then using it to refer to black Americans would be silly. But it isn't, so it is not.

EDIT: Further if you want to get all technically huffy, there are those that object to using "American" to describe those that live in the United States or North America. How say Llewdor and Myrmidonisia on that?

first, you mean african born or raised in america.

second, technically, african americans use the word "******" more often and then get mad at everyone else that uses it. and they will probably get mad at me for it when they read this.

EDIT: Further if you want to get all technically huffy, there are those that object to using "American" to describe those that live in the United States or North America. How say Llewdor and Myrmidonisia on that?
I routinely refer to Americans as Americans. You're the only country with America in your name.

Also, while residents of continents are often referred to as such (Europeans), there is no continent America. North Americans are an identifiable group. South Americans are an identifiable group.

first, you mean african born or raised in america.

second, technically, african americans use the word "******" more often and then get mad at everyone else that uses it. and they will probably get mad at me for it when they read this.

Is that not your intention (judging from your name)?

TIA.....TIA..

Edit: What the hell is with Jolt and its draconian no-capital-letters-in-a-row policy!?

Edit: Now it works... wow.. the world has gone mad.

Is that not your intention (judging from your name)?

no, not really, all of the other names I came up with were taken already, so I figured I'd just go with this. so far it works.

i've got a name for Hungarian-Bulgarian-German-Welsh-English-European-Australians, well travelled.

I wish I was.

Unfortunately, my genes have travelled more than I have. I've been to a lot of places in Australia, but I am yet to go overseas. I will hopefully be going to Europe this year, though!

Really? All the Indians I know describe themselves as Brown.

Let's just stick with the colours - they're value-neutral. We just have to get the Yellows and the Reds to agree. :cool:

Really.

They're not value-neutral, and they're also not accurate. A Greek person can be just as dark as a Coloured South African person. By your "colour logic", they're both be "brown". A Hungarian person can be just as pale as an English person. By your "logic" they'd be both be "white" (well, tecnically they're very pale creamy pink...). And last time I checked, the only "yellow" people were The Simpsons.


second, technically, african americans use the word "******" more often and then get mad at everyone else that uses it. and they will probably get mad at me for it when they read this.

Uh, firstly you need to remove the word "technically" from that sentence.

Secondly, it doesn't matter who says that word. It's still not nice to use a word that's meaning relates directly to years of slavery, mistreatment and racism.

I'm curious as to the identity of some of these silly words that have been used consistently since Shakespeare.



What is more etymologically correct? "Black" for people who aren't really the color black?

Negro

Uh, firstly you need to remove the word "technically" from that sentence.

Secondly, it doesn't matter who says that word. It's still not nice to use a word that's meaning relates directly to years of slavery, mistreatment and racism.

fine, I take back the technically (even though it's true, I did a study for a humanities class once) and then why would they use it then? it makes no sense to use a derogatory term that refers to such horrible things to call every person you meet that's like yourself. I personally am highly surprised most aren't offended by it! the only thing I'm mad about is that they can use it but I can't because I'm white.

we need a black person in here to comment on what they think, otherwise it's all just a single perspective argument...

fine, I take back the technically (even though it's true, I did a study for a humanities class once) and then why would they use it then? it makes no sense to use a derogatory term that refers to such horrible things to call every person you meet that's like yourself. I personally am highly surprised most aren't offended by it! the only thing I'm mad about is that they can use it but I can't because I'm white.

we need a black person in here to comment on what they think, otherwise it's all just a single perspective argument...
Cracka please. Why you be all up in this heezy trippin', foo? Get up out my grill fo' I cap yo ass.

fine, I take back the technically (even though it's true, I did a study for a humanities class once) and then why would they use it then? it makes no sense to use a derogatory term that refers to such horrible things to call every person you meet that's like yourself. I personally am highly surprised most aren't offended by it! the only thing I'm mad about is that they can use it but I can't because I'm white.

we need a black person in here to comment on what they think, otherwise it's all just a single perspective argument...

It's not a technicality, though. Also, you can't learn that kind of thing from a humanities class. Many, many people are offended by it.

My fiance, Rotovia, is Coloured South African.

Perhaps he can fill the role. :rolleyes:

Really.

They're not value-neutral, and they're also not accurate.
Unless they're denotatively derisive, all words are value-neutral.

fine, I take back the technically (even though it's true, I did a study for a humanities class once) and then why would they use it then? it makes no sense to use a derogatory term that refers to such horrible things to call every person you meet that's like yourself. I personally am highly surprised most aren't offended by it! the only thing I'm mad about is that they can use it but I can't because I'm white.


I see the bolded sentiment a lot on NSG, and I've never understood it. As a white person, I have never once had the thought, "Man, I really wish I could say '******,' but I can't because I'm white! This sucks!" I don't want to say "******." I am really very much okay with the fact that if I choose to use a racist and derogatory term, people will think I am the sort of person who uses racist and derogatory terms and judge me accordingly. I simply can't comprehend why this seems to bother so many people...

fine, I take back the technically (even though it's true, I did a study for a humanities class once) and then why would they use it then? it makes no sense to use a derogatory term that refers to such horrible things to call every person you meet that's like yourself. I personally am highly surprised most aren't offended by it! the only thing I'm mad about is that they can use it but I can't because I'm white.

we need a black person in here to comment on what they think, otherwise it's all just a single perspective argument...

I'll steal an idea from D.L. Hughley: blacks would be glad to trade -- they can run the world and you can say "******" all you want. They'll even throw in sickle-cell anemia. Do we have a deal?

2. "Negro" and "African-American" do NOT have the same meaning.

OED Online says "African-American" means "An American (esp. a North American) of African origin; a black American."

"Negro" means "A member of a dark-skinned group of peoples originally native to sub-Saharan Africa; a person of black African origin or descent. In early use also applied to other dark-skinned peoples, esp. Moors."

Seems darned close to me... But then I'm being difficult.

Come on, you're a smart guy, you can see the gaping differences between the two words.

And, yes, you are being difficult. Are you one of those people that calls someone Eddie even though he prefers to be called Edgar?

Come on, you're a smart guy, you can see the gaping differences between the two words.

And, yes, you are being difficult. Are you one of those people that calls someone Eddie even though he prefers to be called Edgar?

Over the years (decades actually), African-Americans have insisted on changing the name we're supposed to call them. In fact, at one time, they insisted on being called "black", but now that's offensive for some reason.

I wish they would just pick one, and stick with it, ok?

Unless they're denotatively derisive, all words are value-neutral.

You neatly avoided the fact that "the colors" are not accurate -- which was supposedly your complaint about African-American in the first place.

The simple fact is that Negro and African-American are not the same thing.

Moreover, words can have a history as the OED testifies. The history of these words matter and make them not value-neutral.

Over the years (decades actually), African-Americans have insisted on changing the name we're supposed to call them. In fact, at one time, they insisted on being called "black", but now that's offensive for some reason.

I wish they would just pick one, and stick with it, ok?

Are you saying that, even though change has occurred over decades, it is too much burden on you to keep up?

The meaning of words change over time. What words are accepted or understood best changes over time. Get used to it.

And, yes, you are being difficult. Are you one of those people that calls someone Eddie even though he prefers to be called Edgar?

That depends...Is your name Edgar?

I've heard Naomi Campbell called African-American even though she is not American, she is from England! and she looks good in a mini-skirt so thats back on topic.
EDIT: and I looked it up and she is Jamaican decent

Unless they're denotatively derisive, all words are value-neutral.

But words like "yellow", "red" and "black" are not value neutral. They have negative conotations, because all three words have been used when negatively describing a race.

And, all words aren't value-neurtral, either. We wouldn't have language if words didn't mean anything.

But words like "yellow", "red" and "black" are not value neutral. They have negative conotations, because all three words have been used when negatively describing a race.
Just because words have been used negatively, it does not follow that everytime the word is used it is in a negative context.

And, all words aren't value-neurtral, either. We wouldn't have language if words didn't mean anything.
Words mean something yes, but they are not inherently positive nor negative in connotation.

But words like "yellow", "red" and "black" are not value neutral. They have negative conotations, because all three words have been used when negatively describing a race.

And, all words aren't value-neurtral, either. We wouldn't have language if words didn't mean anything.

A yellow car, red can, and black shoe have no negative connotations. Unless you mean a mexican's car, an indian's can, and a black person's shoe. And then it's only negative if you're not racist.

Negro

But that literally does mean "black"; saying it in Spanish makes it "etymologically correct"? It does not mean "person descended form African races", it means "black".

fine, I take back the technically (even though it's true, I did a study for a humanities class once) and then why would they use it then? it makes no sense to use a derogatory term that refers to such horrible things to call every person you meet that's like yourself. I personally am highly surprised most aren't offended by it! the only thing I'm mad about is that they can use it but I can't because I'm white.

we need a black person in here to comment on what they think, otherwise it's all just a single perspective argument...

Define the bold print, if you please. In addition, I must state that whining about not being able to call people "niggers" is silly. It is like complaining that are people going unpunished for committing suicide, but you get punished for killing them.

Does Bobby Fischer telling the world how evil the Jews are make it alright for you to start preaching Nazism?

I'll steal an idea from D.L. Hughley: blacks would be glad to trade -- they can run the world and you can say "******" all you want. They'll even throw in sickle-cell anemia. Do we have a deal?

CT...I have to say that I am bit disappointed. You are normally an excellent debater on racial issues...but this is silly. Blacks get to vote, the same as whites. Currently a half-black fellow may become president, yet I (and me a "whitey" to boot!) have no chance. To say that we "white" people get to run things is absurd. What benefit do I get because Bush is white? I might very well be voting for Obama--and not to get "******" privileges.

Over the years (decades actually), African-Americans have insisted on changing the name we're supposed to call them. In fact, at one time, they insisted on being called "black", but now that's offensive for some reason.

I wish they would just pick one, and stick with it, ok?

What are they, one person now?

Aside: ****** was not offensive at one time--how terrible that we cannot call "them" that?

CT...I have to say that I am bit disappointed. You are normally an excellent debater on racial issues...but this is silly. Blacks get to vote, the same as whites. Currently a half-black fellow may become president, yet I (and me a "whitey" to boot!) have no chance. To say that we "white" people get to run things is absurd. What benefit do I get because Bush is white? I might very well be voting for Obama--and not to get "******" privileges.

First, ease up a little. It was a joke. And I think it was a funny one.

Second, are you seriously going to argue that whites aren't privileged and blacks aren't disadvantaged? On what grounds, that the only African-American in the Senate has a shot at the White House after 43 white males in a row?

Need I remind you of the State of Black America (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12633540&postcount=1)? For example, in 1995, white males held 97 percent of senior management positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries. Only 0.6 percent of senior management were African American, 0.3 percent are Asian and 0.4 percent are Hispanic. Little change has occurred in these numbers since 1995.

Third, the point was clear. It is, as you said in your wise post, silly to claim some offense at not being able to use the word "******." It is also myopia regarding racial issues to the degree of legal blindness.

Come on, you're a smart guy, you can see the gaping differences between the two words.

And, yes, you are being difficult. Are you one of those people that calls someone Eddie even though he prefers to be called Edgar?
I don't much care what some members of a group of people call themselves. I find names to be much easier to use, anyway.

I don't know anyone named Edgar, will Edward do? In fact, I'd prefer a little less use of first names especially by the anonymous myrmidons in HR.

I once had a girlfriend that was named Judith... not Judy, not ever. After making that mistake once, I typically default to addressing people the way they are introduced to me until they tell me otherwise.

Anyway, I've stirred the pot a little and had some fun. It's time to retire to the dock with a nice glass of bourbon.

I don't much care what some members of a group of people call themselves. I find names to be much easier to use, anyway.

I don't know anyone named Edgar, will Edward do? In fact, I'd prefer a little less use of first names especially by the anonymous myrmidons in HR.

I once had a girlfriend that was named Judith... not Judy, not ever. After making that mistake once, I typically default to addressing people the way they are introduced to me until they tell me otherwise.

Anyway, I've stirred the pot a little and had some fun. It's time to retire to the dock with a nice glass of bourbon.

Cool. :cool: I might have a little something myself. ;)

I can understand it better, thank you.

I am not arguing that blacks are not disadvantaged. I am saying that a phrase like "whites run the world" is preposterous; I am white and I do not run the world more than the average black (id est, one vote). Sure, most of the country-runners are white, but it is not any boon to the other %99.99 of whites.

Indeed it is silly, and our opinions are in total accord. I am just mildly peeved at a notion that the "we" which includes "me" runs the world.

I understand. I emphasize that it was a joke.

But also the "we" is a vast generalization and simplification ... dammit, lost my train of thought.

Anyway, I am a white male and I don't run the world either, but that doesn't mean I don't live in a society where white males have disproportionate power.

First, ease up a little. It was a joke. And I think it was a funny one.

I can understand it better, thank you.

Second, are you seriously going to argue that whites aren't privileged and blacks aren't disadvantaged? On what grounds, that the only African-American in the Senate has a shot at the White House after 43 white males in a row?

Need I remind you of the State of Black America (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12633540&postcount=1)? For example, in 1995, white males held 97 percent of senior management positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries. Only 0.6 percent of senior management were African American, 0.3 percent are Asian and 0.4 percent are Hispanic. Little change has occurred in these numbers since 1995.

I am not arguing that blacks are not disadvantaged. I am saying that a phrase like "whites run the world" is preposterous; I am white and I do not run the world more than the average black (id est, one vote). Sure, most of the country-runners are white, but it is not any boon to the other %99.99 of whites.

Third, the point was clear. It is, as you said in your wise post, silly to claim some offense at not being able to use the word "******." It is also myopia regarding racial issues to the degree of legal blindness.

Indeed it is silly, and our opinions are in total accord. I am just mildly peeved at a notion that the "we" which includes "me" runs the world.

RhynoDD;13506540']A yellow car, red can, and black shoe have no negative connotations. Unless you mean a mexican's car, an indian's can, and a black person's shoe. And then it's only negative if you're not racist.

No.

Colours have meanings. All words have meanings.

Black shoes could symbolise business shoes, or a yellow car could symbolise a sports car. Colours aren't neutral. Look at films, for example: the protagonist is often dressed in white, and the antagonist is often dressed in black. The colour white can symbolically stand for a variety of things, as can the colour red. Red can mean blood, passion, heat, anger and so on.

Plus, as I think I've already stated, people can have the same colour skin and come from different ethnic backgrounds.

You know what?

I am sick and tired of the ignorance shown by some people on this forum.

Why does every single debate about Africa end up in a discussion about racism?

It's pathetic.

Can't you discuss things without immediately jumping to the discussion of race and colour?

This thread was about an incident that happened in South Africa, but it could have happened in so many other places around the world. This issue has very little to do with race, and is more about women's rights.

In the USA women get abused for dressing "innapropriately". In Australia it happens too, and in my society I've heard men justify sexual abuse/rape/etc based on how a girl looks or what she wears. This is not an issue specific to South Africa, and it's certianly nothing to do with African's SKIN COLOUR.

[/end rant.]

No.

Colours have meanings. All words have meanings.

I said connotation, which is entirely different from meaning. Look up the meaning for the word connotation and you with will see that it is not the same meaning as the word meaning. I rest my case.

Black shoes could symbolise business shoes, or a yellow car could symbolise a sports car. Colours aren't neutral.
You are speaking hypotheticals. The difference is in the context, which adds a connotation to the meaning of the word that is otherwise neutral.
I rest my case, again.
And anyways, red is the color generally associated with sports-cars.

Look at films, for example: the protagonist is often dressed in white, and the protagonist is often dressed in black. The colour white can symbolically stand for a variety of things, as can the colour red. Red can mean blood, passion, heat, anger and so on.
The context has changed. We are now speaking in the context of film, which is different from normal speech. Until the context is given, most words, certainly including colors, remain neutral, with certain exceptions, though they are not true exceptions because they still fall within the context of our culture.

Plus, as I think I've already stated, people can have the same colour skin and come from different ethnic backgrounds.

What is your point?

I don't much care what some members of a group of people call themselves. I find names to be much easier to use, anyway.

I don't know anyone named Edgar, will Edward do? In fact, I'd prefer a little less use of first names especially by the anonymous myrmidons in HR.

I once had a girlfriend that was named Judith... not Judy, not ever. After making that mistake once, I typically default to addressing people the way they are introduced to me until they tell me otherwise.

Anyway, I've stirred the pot a little and had some fun. It's time to retire to the dock with a nice glass of bourbon.

I think his name is Edgar. Try calling him Eddie and see if it pisses him off. Which is just silly, as Eddie is a fantastic nickname.

Colours have meanings. All words have meanings.

Even so, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Look at films, for example: the protagonist is often dressed in white, and the protagonist is often dressed in black.

Did you mean antagonist the second time? That said, that's not quite as noticeable anymore since it tends to get inverted often or just ditched and replaced with different imagery (such as Neo's clothing Vs Agent clothing in the Matrix. Same idea of representing something through clothing, but a bit more complicated than just color)

RhynoDD;13507748']I said connotation, which is entirely different from meaning. Look up the meaning for the word connotation and you with will see that it is not the same meaning as the word meaning. I rest my case.

I'm aware that connotation and meaning aren't the same thing, but you can't deny that most words have "connotations" as well.


I rest my case, again.


Clearly, you didn't rest your case the first time.

The context has changed. We are now speaking in the context of film, which is different from normal speech. Until the context is given, most words, certainly including colors, remain neutral, with certain exceptions, though they are not true exceptions because they still fall within the context of our culture.

No. Colours aren't neutral. The reason why we see colour used as a symbol is that people can relate these symbols to every day life. If the symbolic meaning of colour didn't exist outside the discourse of film, viewers wouldn't understand it.

By the way, I don't think it's necessary to bold the word "the".

What is your point?

Well, if you read the thread, you'd see that I was disagreeing with Llewdor, who basically said that we should label people by the colour of their skin, because doing it that way is "neutral". However, it's not particularly logical, because saying anyone with "white" skin is "white" doesn't actually define their ethnicity.

Did you mean antagonist the second time? That said, that's not quite as noticeable anymore since it tends to get inverted often or just ditched and replaced with different imagery (such as Neo's clothing Vs Agent clothing in the Matrix. Same idea of representing something through clothing, but a bit more complicated than just color)

Yes, I did, and I fixed it.

Of course filmic conventions change, but the point I was trying to get across is that colours aren't "neutral".

RhynoDD;13507763']I think his name is Edgar. Try calling him Eddie and see if it pisses him off. Which is just silly, as Eddie is a fantastic nickname.
Nah, I'm not that kind of guy. If I'm going to PO someone, I'd rather it be over something important. Or even politics.

When it comes to names, I'm glad my Indian and Chinese friends have adopted Americanized nicknames. I don't think I'd be able to address them at all, otherwise.

But that literally does mean "black"; saying it in Spanish makes it "etymologically correct"? It does not mean "person descended form African races", it means "black".

Fine, Negroid then.

Nah, I'm not that kind of guy. If I'm going to PO someone, I'd rather it be over something important. Or even politics.

When it comes to names, I'm glad my Indian and Chinese friends have adopted Americanized nicknames. I don't think I'd be able to address them at all, otherwise.

I've noticed that the foreigners arriving in the US who came here to make good money have no problem assimilating. They change their names, etc. Speak English. They don't play the victim.

Most people from India and China are in IT, and are making good money.

The people mowing the laws who came from Salvador, Honduras, and Mexico by and large aren't making much money by comparison, so they have no intention of assimilating.

I've noticed that the foreigners arriving in the US who came here to make good money have no problem assimilating. They change their names, etc. Speak English. They don't play the victim.

Most people from India and China are in IT, and are making good money.

The people mowing the laws who came from Salvador, Honduras, and Mexico by and large aren't making much money by comparison, so they have no intention of assimilating.

Now there's a heady mix of disdain and bigotry!

I'm aware that connotation and meaning aren't the same thing, but you can't deny that most words have "connotations" as well.
Only in context. And only when you assign connotations to them.

Clearly, you didn't rest your case the first time.
I like my cases to be well rested.

No. Colours aren't neutral. The reason why we see colour used as a symbol is that people can relate these symbols to every day life. If the symbolic meaning of colour didn't exist outside the discourse of film, viewers wouldn't understand it.
Generally speaking, no. When you see a white wall, you do not think that the wall is a protagonist. Unless you're reading "The Little Wall that Could." It's not a very exciting story.

By the way, I don't think it's necessary to bold the word "the".
Clearly I did think it was necessary.

Well, if you read the thread, you'd see that I was disagreeing with Llewdor, who basically said that we should label people by the colour of their skin, because doing it that way is "neutral".
I call shenanigans on Llewdor.

However, it's not particularly logical, because saying anyone with "white" skin is "white" doesn't actually define their ethnicity.
And yet on every standardized test I've ever taken I have never seen "Welsh" as an option. So apparently it does actually define my ethnicity. Which is ok, because I don't care.

You neatly avoided the fact that "the colors" are not accurate -- which was supposedly your complaint about African-American in the first place.
Without a strict definition of what the label means, all I have is the content of the term. African-American looks a lot like Italian-American in structure, which would make white South Africans qualify should they move to America.
The simple fact is that Negro and African-American are not the same thing.
Again, a strict definition would help a lot.
Moreover, words can have a history as the OED testifies. The history of these words matter and make them not value-neutral.
This gets covered below. And not by me.
But words like "yellow", "red" and "black" are not value neutral. They have negative conotations, because all three words have been used when negatively describing a race.
They've been used. That they've been used negatively I will not concede.
And, all words aren't value-neurtral, either. We wouldn't have language if words didn't mean anything.
And again, this gets addressed neatly by:
Just because words have been used negatively, it does not follow that everytime the word is used it is in a negative context.

Words mean something yes, but they are not inherently positive nor negative in connotation.
Thank you. Well said.
Are you saying that, even though change has occurred over decades, it is too much burden on you to keep up?

The meaning of words change over time. What words are accepted or understood best changes over time. Get used to it.
New meanings are added. Old meanings never go away. That's why the OED never gets any smaller even while people get dumber.

RhynoDD;13508486']
And yet on every standardized test I've ever taken I have never seen "Welsh" as an option. So apparently it does actually define my ethnicity. Which is ok, because I don't care.

But it doesn't. You're Welsh, not "white". Russians are "white". English people are "white". The colour "white" can not define your ethnicity. I don't mind if you don't particularly care, but a colour simply can't define someone's ethnicity.

Without a strict definition of what the label means, all I have is the content of the term. African-American looks a lot like Italian-American in structure, which would make white South Africans qualify should they move to America.

Again, a strict definition would help a lot.

I'm not sure what the difference is between a "strict definition" of a term and the dictionary definition I cited from the OED.

In one state here in Venezuela, famous for its beaches, there are big signs that warn women this:

"It is your fault if you get raped by wearing too provocative clothes. Protect yourself by covering your body. Do not provoke rapists and abusers with too revealing bikinis"

Quite a progressive country, we are turning into.


The sign underneath should say "Rapists will be shot."

The sign underneath should say "Rapists will be shot."

What it should be is that all men are required to wear blindfolds, because they can't be trusted to control themselves from raping if they see female flesh. :p

What it should be is that all men are required to wear blindfolds, because they can't be trusted to control themselves from raping if they see female flesh. :p

A real man can control himself. A piece of crap that calls himself a man but feels the need to abuse and rape should be blindfolded and then shot..... ;)

Over the years (decades actually), African-Americans have insisted on changing the name we're supposed to call them. In fact, at one time, they insisted on being called "black", but now that's offensive for some reason.

I wish they would just pick one, and stick with it, ok?

Or better yet, we can all start referring to each other as just "people," and view each other as individuals, rather than as members of groups. Not that it will ever happen, but one can always dream.

A real man can control himself. A piece of crap that calls himself a man but feels the need to abuse and rape should be blindfolded and then shot..... ;)

No, he should just have his testicles-permit revoked, then have the superfluous equipment confiscated.

Or better yet, we can all start referring to each other as just "people," and view each other as individuals, rather than as members of groups. Not that it will ever happen, but one can always dream.

Amen.

A real man can control himself. A piece of crap that calls himself a man but feels the need to abuse and rape should be blindfolded and then shot..... ;)

Well, to be technical, rape isn't really about an inability to control one's sexual desires. I was trying to emphasize the absurdity of that view.

Or better yet, we can all start referring to each other as just "people," and view each other as individuals, rather than as members of groups. Not that it will ever happen, but one can always dream.

Everybody sing along:

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

LOL.

If one little incident means a country isn't "going places", most countries would be going BACKWARD.

Just LOOK at the USA!

The US has had a much longer history of "going places" than South Africa. I'm not saying that we're perfect, I'm saying that I was disappointed that the attitudes of the South Africans have not changed as much as I had previously thought from their more old-fashioned ways.

The US has had a much longer history of "going places" than South Africa. I'm not saying that we're perfect, I'm saying that I was disappointed that the attitudes of the South Africans have not changed as much as I had previously thought from their more old-fashioned ways.

Perhaps you should try reading my post again.

Here, I'll make it easy for you:

If one little incident means a country isn't "going places", most countries would be going BACKWARD.

Just LOOK at the USA!

And then read what you said:

The US has had a much longer history of "going places" than South Africa. I'm not saying that we're perfect, I'm saying that I was disappointed that the attitudes of the South Africans have not changed as much as I had previously thought from their more old-fashioned ways.

Now, can you see how you have misunderstood what I've said?

This "miniskirt" incident is just one little incident, and doesn't reflect the beliefs of all South Africans or necessarily reflect the view of their entire government. Thousands of incidents happen all over the world every single day, but most people aren't ignorant enough to think that one dispute about miniskirts means a country isn't "going places". You hear of rapes, murders, ridiculous cults, shootings and more happening in the USA, but the USA has definitely gone places.

Using your logic, any country that's had incidents like this (and most countries have), would be going backward.

y'know what, I really didn't read all of the related information about this article, and am not a historian of South Africa, so I'm just going to concede the point here.

I just really don't like it when people take free shots on the US just because they can. South Africa had Apartheid up until '94, this is just another example of discrimination, though in a different area.

But it doesn't. You're Welsh, not "white". Russians are "white". English people are "white". The colour "white" can not define your ethnicity. I don't mind if you don't particularly care, but a colour simply can't define someone's ethnicity.

I believe the point I'm trying to make is that it defines me well enough. I don't particularly see why it needs to be described at all. Unless I stab someone, but then I think they're more worried about being stabbed than about whether or not I'm Russian or Welsh specifically, instead of just white. And if they were I would throw them off by yelling "For Mother Russia" as I did it. Then they would think I'm Russian and I would get away because I'm Welsh.

RhynoDD;13516059']I believe the point I'm trying to make is that it defines me well enough. I don't particularly see why it needs to be described at all. Unless I stab someone, but then I think they're more worried about being stabbed than about whether or not I'm Russian or Welsh specifically, instead of just white. And if they were I would throw them off by yelling "For Mother Russia" as I did it. Then they would think I'm Russian and I would get away because I'm Welsh.

But what I'm saying is, that if you don't particularly care, it doesn't matter, but if someone was trying to define your ethnicity for the purposes of simply defining your ethnicity (as opposed to if you've commited a crime etc), "white" wouldn't really do the job. Someone made the argument that colours should be the way that we define ethnicity, and as I keep repeating, the colour of your skin doesn't define your heritage. Anyway, I don't see why it needs to be defined at all, either, but for the purposes of this ridiculous debate that keeps going around in circles and has nothing to do with the topic, colour doesn't = race.

But race has nothing to do with this thread anyway.

y'know what, I really didn't read all of the related information about this article, and am not a historian of South Africa, so I'm just going to concede the point here.

I just really don't like it when people take free shots on the US just because they can. South Africa had Apartheid up until '94, this is just another example of discrimination, though in a different area.

WHAT? And there isn't discrimination in the US? Slavery only ended in 1865. African-American men were only allowed to vote in 1870, and women in 1920. Native Americans weren't allowed to vote until 1924! The USA is full of racism and sexism, and so are a lot of other countries.

But what I'm saying is, that if you don't particularly care, it doesn't matter,
Yay! I win!

but
Aw. :(

if someone was trying to define your ethnicity for the purposes of simply defining your ethnicity
Circulus in probando. When you use Latin in your post, you win because you sound smarter.

(as opposed to if you've committed a crime etc), "white" wouldn't really do the job.
Well it would if they didn't try so hard. Everything works when you stop trying. Problem solved.

Someone made the argument that colours should be the way that we define ethnicity,
Shenanigans.

and as I keep repeating, the colour of your skin doesn't define your heritage.
Unless we say it does. I can do that, you know. I'm an English major. I'm allowed to change the meanings of words at will. It's like a superpower.

Anyway, I don't see why it needs to be defined at all, either, but for the purposes of this ridiculous debate that keeps going around in circles
This is where the not caring kicks in.

Incidentally, I could never get into track or Nascar. By the third time around I just feel like someone should compare a driver to Hitler in Latin and end the thing.

and has nothing to do with the topic, colour doesn't = race.

But race has nothing to do with this thread anyway.
It has everything to do with the topic.

It has everything to do with every topic. Ever. EVAR!

Why do the good topics all get shoved to the back?

RhynoDD;13518490']Why do the good topics all get shoved to the back?

Because there are no pics of miniskirted young women's asses

Because there are no pics of miniskirted young women's asses

This (http://www.free-beauty-tips.com/pics/miniskirt.jpg) solve (http://nnmodelblog.com/01/teen-model-jen.jpg) the (http://www.myzine.com/upload/4654/2252.jpg) problem (http://www.assinjeans.net/photos/assinjeans-1.jpg) ? (http://pics.imagepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/ass1.jpg)