Comments on: Wal-Mart Shows its Commitment to “Family Values”

By: Eowyn_2

Eowyn_2 — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:04:49 +0000

LOL you’re probably right.

But I’m much more likely to get grammar corrected than keep trashy panties out of the hands of spoiled teenyboppers.

Thank you for correcting it.

By: Glinda

Glinda — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:13:39 +0000

@Eowyn_2, you are correct. It was a simple typo and it is fixed. But the fact that you are more outraged about the typo than the panties scares me a bit.

By: Phalene

Phalene — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:50:08 +0000

Wait, wait… These are teen panties? As in for girls on the cusp of puberty, or often over it? That awkward time when girls start the path of figuring out their sexuality? My twelve year old self is stamping her feet with rage that yet again adults assumed that she can’t corrupt herself very nicely without the adults going ‘oh noes! Product marketed for youngsters with sex in it!’

Not that she’d be caught dead in something that tacky.

By: Eowyn_2

Eowyn_2 — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:22:52 +0000

Well, the panties made me go (O.o)…

But what really outraged me is the “it’s” in the blog entry title.

eye-tee-apostrophe-ess = it is

eye-tee-ess = possessive for it

*sigh*

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:27:27 +0000

I don’t like them. The message itself isn’t overtly sexual, but the placement is. Why decorate our children’s rear ends? Just like the “Pink” sweatpants, lettering in these particular areas serves only to highlight those areas, thus sexualing the person wearing them. They’re tacky enough on adults, but they’re plain creepy on kids.

By: Long Island

Long Island — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:37:56 +0000

Rxl … huh? You need to get more and meet some real republican women. You may find your narrative shattered.

I am in the tasteless but harmless camp. Those undies look like cheaply china made garment which wasn’t very thought out. Furthermore in the great scheme of things … tongue rings, thongs, going commando … those undies are tame.

By: Rxl

Rxl — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:45:22 +0000

Ortizzle: One of the Republican “family values” is that women are only for having babies or having sex with.

By: The Manolo Week in Review » Manolo's Shoe Blog

The Manolo Week in Review » Manolo's Shoe Blog — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:15:20 +0000

[...] Glinda… And perhaps this is the biggest question, when did underwear become reading material? [...]

By: Caitlin

Caitlin — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:56:13 +0000

I don’t think these are sexual, either. Stupid and tasteless? Sure. At least they’re briefs and cover more real estate than bikini-cut or thong underwear.

By: Bellamama

Bellamama — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:37:41 +0000

Nadine is right. I didn’t interpret them that way. In fact (how’s this for exposing my innocent upbringing?) I didn’t get it at all, until my husband pointed it out. HE was plenty outraged!