“Ludwig.... making laws is only workable to a point mate.”

For sure David. But you’ve got to admit; there is a lot that can be achieved with a bit of concerted law-making.

It is not a case of increasing the complexity of regulations or increasing overall restrictions on us all, it is a matter of knowing where we stand.

“For this reason, I think we are consigned to 'dynamic' culture. Waxing and waning according to the impact by various opinion leaders and agents of change. Some will seek to liberalize and others to conserve.”

There’s nothing wrong with a dynamic culture or with changing laws that reflect it…. just as long as the laws do reflect it, and they are policed and respected accordingly.

David, please see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=73#2637

In regard to the Viennese Waltz, Johann Strauss had exactly the same commercial interest as anyone else who has something to sell. And it became popular [as did rock-n-roll] despite determined moral opposition. But I certainly agree with you, Boaz, that ballroom dancing is a great way to meet girls.

But how about this "dress sense" stuff. If we took too much notice of the rag trade, what we couldn't possibly do without "this season", we wouldn't be seen dead in next.

Most of us have probably lived long enough to have seen many changes in fashion. I can recall [in England] zoot suits [drainpipe trousers and very long, loose jackets]. Edwardian style [Teddy Boys]. Italian suits [with short striped jackets]. Long hair for men and assorted facial hair fashions. None of it did any harm, but the amount of moralising which went on about it was almost unbelievable.

Womens' skirt hems went up [Hoorah!] and down [Boo!]. Bikinis became popular on the beach, despite attempts in Australia to ban them and advice from Catholic priests that good girls wouldn't wear them.

Judges, priests and people at graduation day ceremonies carried on dressing like circus clowns.

And the English national dress, the mans' suit, is required wear in hot Australia for funerals, parties, business and even calling the footy.

Anyone like to have a go at defining "good dress sense"? And anything along the lines of - if you have it, then you don't need to have it defined, if you don't have it, then no amount of defining will help you - is a cop out!

I failed to click on ‘email alerts’ that’s why I’m late responding.

Philo, Ludwig is correct: what about the pedophile acts on young girls?
This link is an ACTS AMENDMENT (SEXUALITY DISCRIMINATION) BILL report you should read to get some facts right.
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/hans35.nsf/451a59fb51257dd248256c85002bc738/225a9c34c262b0e9482565fd001311af?OpenDocument

From the report:
“The paranoia and uninformed opinion that "dirty old homosexuals" would prey on vulnerable 16 year old boys is a most offensive notion. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of paedophiles are heterosexual men who violate young girls, yet we hear no objection to an age of consent of 16 for girls who wish to be sexually active.”
And
“Discriminatory behaviour is most often the result of ignorance and fear fed by myths, misconceptions and stereotypes, and there are few areas in life that have evidenced this more than sexuality.”

I just wanted to clear that up with a link because I feel that you don’t have your facts right about homosexuality and pedophilia and I am afraid that RObert’s and Ludwig’s words will fall on deaf ears.

Further, when you talk about ‘good dress sense’, I do see what you mean, but this is a matter of taste as well: good dress sense is in the eye of the beholder.
O how I like to stare at men (especially at their knees) when they walk around in long socks, brown leather sandals, pressed shorts and grey acrylic cardigans. They sure draw my attention to themselves (especially to their knees) when they dress like this ;)

Thank you for this link, Celivia.

And BTW, if ever anyone organises an OLO get together, I'll know what not to wear if I wish to avoid the lustful glances of the ladies!

That's a shame, Rex ;)

I received another interesting article on a parents concern at the way parents are responding to adverstising, and the consequence being premature sexuality.

The media, while complicit, is not entirely to blame.

Pedophiles will peer at children no matter what they wear.

However, due to the 'sex sells' across all advertising these days, are we stealing our children's childhood away from them?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/childhood-shrinks-under-marketing-barrage/2006/10/16/1160850866638.html

Celivia,
Off subject: The act of anal sex between males is what is condemned by society, not a group of persons whom you describe as homosexuals, because of their effeminite nature and whom you believe have a right to practise such acts. They are a sad lot of unfilled men. Many men calling themselves homosexuals have had children, or surgically emasculate themselves. This identity malady does not originate by genetics but by choice. Their problem is an emotional relationship identity with females.