Monday, January 12, 2009

Folks, help me out here...I'm curious

Now, I'm no prude. Really, I'm not! And this 'suit' isn't cut to the waist or sheer, right? But, I was wondering....it hit me..... LADIES : Would you wear it to the Golden Globe's with your teen aged son?
Guys, you can chime in, too, of course!
I'm thinking your reactions just MIGHT be a TAD different than the ladies!!?
(no tacky jokes about GOLDEN GLOBES, okay?!)

And, OH, yes.......this WILL be the last time you'll see Susan Sarandon's picture at geeeeeZ! (I hope!) I must admit that she is quite beautiful. Usually.

z

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oedipus, we barely knew ye!

Chuck said...

Z, I agree fully. Think of the Pamela Anderson's who have nude pictures of themselves all over the place and have children. It's a wholly different mindset.

BTW, while I do agree she can be an attractive woman, I do not find myself drawn to hatefulness.

Anonymous said...

He actually looks uncomfortable there. Maybe it was just the moment.
She's a bit old to be showing that much cleavage.
It looks desperate.

Z said...

You know, you guys, I honestly do feel the son looks uncomfortable. I've seen that look on other stars' childrens' faces...."Oh, man, I'm very cool, and Mom's famous, but don't look at her.........s, please...Oh, MAN"

I made the mistake of watching Janice Dickerson's show a little and her kid looked just SO embarrassed.

Then they wonder what's wrong with their kids later on, right?

Anonymous said...

She's a frog-eyed commie...with some REAL natural assets! I liked her in Bull Dutham, but every time she's off camera, she's a leftist idiot. You didn't expect class, did you?

Morgan

CJ said...

This is all I have to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MarNBaD6p9o

(Sorry, happened to see it this morning and it's sorta relevant).

Papa Frank said...

With her being a leftist bleeding heart liberal maybe it was out of practicality. Maybe it was in case her son got hungry and started to cry. Don't judge her she's just wants the best for her baby. ;0)

Anonymous said...

"LADIES : Would you wear it to the Golden Globe's with your teen aged son? "

No, it would have embarrassed him.

Heck, it would have embarrassed me!

Pris

Anonymous said...

I have some idea of how old Susan has to be, and I MUST she's ... er ... HOLDING UP very well.


She's been married to fellow leftist Tim Robbins for a long time. Whatever one may think of their politics their devotion to each other seems genuine.


I didn't even know they had a son. Nice-looking, tall drink of water, isn't he?


Did you know that in the Regency period in England (when The Brighton Pavillion was built) upper-class ladies of fashion not only EXPOSED their bosoms --- they ROUGED them.


I might have developed a great love for Susan Sarandon, if only she hadn't opened her foolish mouth.


And she's ANOTHER one who has a tinny, poorly produced voice. Like Jane Fonda she always sounds like a snotty, spoiled brat.


But she IS a beauty and a LONG-LASTING one at at that.


~ FreeThinke

The Vegas Art Guy said...

Wow, is it just me or has gravity really done a number on her?

I hope he got a new Prius out of the deal!

Pasadena Closet Conservative said...

Appropriateness took a nose dive years ago with these celebrities. It's a shame.

Brooke said...

I feel bad for that boy!

Good grief, someone get that woman an underwire, or at least a frickin' shirt! No wonder the kid is uncomfortable!

WomanHonorThyself said...

where ya been girl?..miss u at WHT!!

Z said...

FT....Sarandon and Robbins have never married..they just have two sons together. You know, they can't commit to marriage but they committed to bringing children into the world...make sense!? Cracks me up.

I just learned tonight that the outfit she wore got Top 10 Best Dressed..or something like that.
If she'd had an abortion yesterday or the nipples were showing through, maybe she'd have made No. 1, huh?

sorry, but.......

You know, I posted this because I felt for the boy. And I wondered if it was just me.

it isn't. thanks, guys.

Average American said...

Oh, so that is a mother/son in the pic. I thought it was a girlfriend/boyfriend. It must really piss him off when his friends drool over his mother.

Always On Watch said...

LADIES : Would you wear it to the Golden Globe's with your teen aged son?

No way!

Yes, Sarandon is a beautiful woman. But this outfit is on the slut-dressing side.

Ducky's here said...

Oh, I'm afraid you're correct, z. That is a definite fashion FAIL.

I.H.S. said...

If that were me and my mother, I can honestly say she would be going by herself.

I wouldn't want my wife, who is the finest thing since the dawning of time, wear something like that...EVER.

Poor guy, but if his parents never married and had children then he probably doesn't think anything wrong with her outfit.

Blessings.

Anonymous said...

The outfit attracted your ATTENTION, which is EXACTLY what it was INTENDED to do.


In Hollywood --- as in POLITICS --- there is NO SUCH THING as BAD PUBLICITY.


I don't feel a bit sorry for that boy. He was raised with this sort of thing, and I'm sure it's second nature to him.


Susan may cultivate a look that is anything but MATURE and MATERNAL, but at least no one could accuse her of being a FRUMP, which is what most women her age develop into, if they're not exceedingly careful.


If Tim and Susan never tied the knot officially, that doesn't make them any less married --- in the eyes of the LAW. A heterosexual couple who lives together under one roof for more than, I think it's five years, automatically become married under Common Law.


It may not be the way you --- or I --- would want to do it, but in this Land of the Free it's perfectly acceptable.


After all that I have to say her appearance is in bad taste, but that's what Pop Culture has done. We have been IMMERSED in a ERA of BAD TASTE ever since the advent of Rock 'n Roll.


Susan's a SYMPTOM not a CAUSE.


~ FreeThinke

Elmers Brother said...

it's called propriety

CJ said...

Actually, FT, it depends on which state you live in whether common law is recognized or not. Turns out it isn't recognized in California although many have thought it was.

The son may be completely dead to the effect of his mother's outfit, though the picture does hint that he might not be, but whether he is or not I suspect our knowing that's her son with her in that pose makes it more uncomfortable for the rest of us. That is, we might more easily just brush it off as typical Hollywood vulgarity if she were standing there alone with her boobs hanging out.

Z said...

The point is not whether it's good taste to wear it or how it attracts our attention..the point is HER SON.

The boy looks totally uncomfortable.." Oh, maaaan..you have to take a PICTURE, TOOOO?"

I.H.S....beautifully said!

And no, I don't believe California recognizes common law marriage. If we did, we'd have a LOT less people living together past seven years, TRUST me.

My favorite is the women who have kids by their 'men' and admit their guy just has trouble committing..but THEY"ll commit GIVING BIRTH TO A HUMAN BEING, right? Unreal.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, CJ, for that information. I did not know that Common Law marriages were not universally recognized in the USA.


BUT, recognized or not, if the parties involved stay together, love each other, are responsible to and for each other and provide decently for themselves and their offspring in the material sense, it's very difficult for THIS admitted renegade to feel there is too much wrong with their union.


How many millions TAKE the marriage vows in public ceremonies, and then proceed to make a MOCKERY of them in the way they live their lives.


Not to be impudent, but "It's the BEHAVIOR, Stupid!" ;-)


Pragmatist that I am I would be most concerned about property rights and the rights of inheritance, because of the stupid, grabby, greedy, discriminatory, often-confiscatory politics of GOVERNMENT at ALL levels. No sensible person should leave his loved ones unprotected in this way.


BTW did you know that Andrew Jackson was not really married to his wife Rachel, because her first husband, who by all accounts was a rotter, refused to give her a divorce --- or something like that. I think the situation was eventually "corrected," but not for a long time.


Much was made of it by Jackson's political enemies (I would have been one of them, I'm sure) but ultimately it didn't make much-if-any difference.


And why SHOULD it?


We should have the right to maintain high standards we believe in for OURSELVES, but we have NO right to IMPOSE uniform standards on those who don't think the way we do.


THAT kind of freedom is what America was SUPPOSED to be all about it.


Tyranny is tyranny no matter what banner it flies.


True to myself andd my name,

FreeThinke

Shaw Kenawe said...

Believe it or not, young men can deal with the fact that their mothers have breasts. Even large ones.

It's natural and a fact of life.

There's nothing wrong with Sarandon's outfit. And it is your OPINION, not a fact, that her son looks "uncomfortable." That look was caught at the moment the photo was snapped and not necessarily indicative of if he's uncomfortable with his mother.

Have you ever been to the beach? Do mothers keep tee-shirts over their two-piece bathing suits, or even their one- piece bathing suits in order to shield their sons from seeing cleavage?

Good grief. What is your problem??

Elmers Brother said...

Believe it or not, young men can deal with the fact that their mothers have breasts. Even large ones.

It's natural and a fact of life.


the problem is not the breast, it's whether it's appropriate for it to be flaunted like a two dollar whore in front of your son

even women who breast feed...sure it's natural but who wants to look at a woman breast feeding..cover it up

taking a piss is natural but I'm not going to do it on a beach or in the street

Pat Jenkins said...

at least she got her son to be seen in public wtih her. i can't get my daughter to go anywhere with me!.... he he!!

CJ said...

I don't suppose this is the place to get too deeply into the philosophical issues you raise, FT, but I can't resist another comment:

"We should have the right to maintain high standards we believe in for OURSELVES, but we have NO right to IMPOSE uniform standards on those who don't think the way we do.

THAT kind of freedom is what America was SUPPOSED to be all about it.

Tyranny is tyranny no matter what banner it flies."

Sorry, but "THAT kind of freedom" is precisely NOT what America was supposed to be all about, and this kind of claim is really what has been undermining us culturally for the last few decades.

You make a lot about the influence of Cultural Marxism in destroying the country, but you seem to have failed to notice that it was exactly this redefining of "freedom" in cultural terms as what the US is supposed to be about that was their destructive work.

It ought to be obvious but apparently isn't that freedom in the Constitution refers to political freedoms, the right to speak your mind politically, the right to oppose a sitting government, the right to defend yourself even against the government if need be, and never had any implication of such "rights" as marriage or letting your boobs or any other part of your anatomy hang out in public, or to publish pornography or any of the other impositions on public taste and decency that the ACLU and other elements of the left have been perpetrating on us for the last half century.

A society -- including its laws -- DOES have the right to impose standards in this area and when you make it an issue of personal freedom you undermine the cultural environment in which we all live.

Anonymous said...

I agree and disagree, CJ.

What I probably SHOULD have said was this. There's a subtle difference:

••• "We should have the right to maintain high standards we believe in for OURSELVES, but we have NO right to impose OUR particular religious and cultural standards on those who don't think the way we do." •••

FT

I.H.S. said...

FT, People impose "cultural stadards" on people everyday.

i.e., "No shirt, no shoes no service" So, what's wrong with expecting a level of decency as it pertains to dress? Just asking, no looking for an arguement.

Blessings.

Elmers Brother said...

again propriety

Anonymous said...

I see your point, I.H.S., but isn't our MAIN problem with Marxism/Liberalism that they encroach more and more on our liberty and have moved in with too much success to micro-manage our lives through official channels?


We love Christianity, but despise Marxism, isn't that correct? But the Constitution allows for a wide latitude of thought and feeling to run free.


When one sector seeks to DOMINATE totally, it myst have its wings clipped, because absolute power corrupts absolutely --- even when it is in the hands of decent God-fearing Christians.


Power, ITSELF, is one of our greatest enemies. In our pride and vanity most of us imagine that WE could use it without being corrupted.

We can't.


And, EB, you are assuming that YOUR idea of propriety is UNIVERSAL. I'm sorry but that just ain't so.


~ FT

Larry T Durham said...

Looks like the knockers are drifting southward. But that's ok, pretty soon old susan will be unbuttoning her blouse to brush her teeth.

I.H.S. said...

Sorry FT it took me a minute to get back to you. Hope this answers you alright.

"We love Christianity, but despise Marxism, isn't that correct?" I believe, FT there in lies the problem with most people; they love christianity. And, I sure you may say that loving Christ is the same as loving Christianity, but I say it isn't the same.

As far as absolute power corrupting absolutely; I would say that it's uncontrolled power that corrupts absolutely. Everything has to have some sort of check and balance to it, if the power that comes into our homes wasn't regulated by transformers and the like, we all would be living outside.

Finally, I think that the problem isn't so much Marxism/Liberalism I think it's just that those that espouse those doctrines have been successful because they know in whom to attempt the indoctrination process, and that is and always will be persons that look to be given something as opposed to getting it for themselves.

The Apostle Paul said it this way:" 1Th 4:11 And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you; 1Th 4:12 That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and [that] ye may have lack of nothing."

Blessings.