hmmmm, so are we sexualizing our daughter by makign her wear a skort instead of a skirt? I mean, who cares if her underwear show as she plays on the playground, its not sexual. hmmmmm
I don't think it is, but thats just me. I see kids in their underwear or naked all of the time. I work at a daycare center. However, I didn't mean that your policy for what you allow your daughter to wear is wrong. In fact I wasn't commenting on it at all. But maybe I see kids so often my views are warpped. :shrug:
Why do people only talk about their daughters? Don't you have rules regarding your sons as well, but sexuality is bad for women to have and acceptable for men. I see people dressing their little boys up like pimps or cowboys and I've seen cowboys in porn, doesn't that imply something sexual?
That's the thing though. It's not just t-shirts like that. I mean does a 6 year old girl really need to wear underwear with "Bite This" written on the crotch? Spud hit the nail on the head when he asked, 'what kind of message are we sending our children' when we dress them this way? Instead of allowing children to be children, many parents are trying to make them more grown up by dressing them as they would dress themselves. I feel the same way about putting a t-shirt on my 2 year old with the words "well hung" on it. He's two! Personally, I don't think it is cute at all. Yes, paedophiles do not need to see parents dressing their children in clothes with sexual messages on them to feel sexually attracted to the children. This is not really about provoking paedophiles. It's not about small children playing and having their underwear flashing to the public.. lets face it, children do play vigorously and will always flash something at one point or another.. It is about parents thinking it is cute to make their children into little sexualised copies of themselves. This is about parents who feel the need to promote their own sexual identity through their children.
If the parent dresses their son in spurs and crotchless undies or g-string with no shirt on and a cowboy hat.. then yes, that could be seen as sexualising the little boy. Pimps? Ermm pimps tend to dress like every other normal person out there now days, so they do not stand out as much and draw attention to themselves. "Pimps" clothing has a tendency to be portrayed as being overly flamboyant and flashy in movies. The reality is they tend to try to blend in so that they do not attract police attention.
cowboys don't make me think of anything sexual at all, but maybe that's just me. anyway, if the little kids dressing up as cowboys were wearing assless chaps, yeah it would be a bit problematic. but no, they're generally pretty fully clothed. the problem is not one of "girls shouldn't be sexual but boys can do whatever they want." i wouldn't want either of my kids dressing like whores. they just don't make clothes like that nearly as often for young boys, although t-shirts with lude sayings do sometimes exist. and well, boys just don't really buy nearly as many clothes or care about what they wear nearly as much. i also think that whereas a mom wants to come off as cool and open-minded and open to sexuality in a girl and will buy them whatever sexy clothes they want, they won't necessarily do that to boys. what's a boy going to do? show off his knee in his long shorts?
... i don't know, in this day and age especially, plaid schoolgirl uniforms are "sexy" by association. it's actually kind of disturbing... i mean how does that even start off as being sexy?!!
i think that some group needs to look at what children clothing companies are making for kids, for christ sake, they censor films why notclothes?
LA, everyone has sugested that the only people these sorts of clothing would please are the bottom dollor of companies and pedifiles I cant argue with the first but im not so sure about the second. From everything i have read on pedifila im not sure TRUE pedifiles would actually find this sort of clothing atractive at all We are coming from a stand point of look at "jail bait" ie well endowed (or whatever) POST pubesant girls (or guys) who happen to be under LEGAL age but not biological age and transfering this atraction to pedifiles However from everything i read its the INOCENCE of prepubesant children that atracts true pedifiles (rather than those charged with stat rape) In actuality we COULD actually be repelling pedifilesPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If they arnt acting inocent, if they are acting sexual like a sexual active person (adolesent OR adult) then i doubt that they would be atractive anymore. Of corse this is a guess based on my reading of the disorder so it could be compleatly wrong and it doesnt include those who are atracted to young POST pubesant teens. I would however be VERY interested in Huww's (or whatever his name is) opinion as he is the one studying psycology
pffft, most pedophiles I've read about say "she wanted me" "She was flirting with me" I think sexy clothes would do a lot to foster these twisted viewpoints.
I think so too - people do it to some extent simply because "it's fashionable". But there is something else: Many people teach their children to be competitive, to be ruthless to the weak, to value money above other things, to take the path of least resistance, to indulge in material pleasures. One could be morally outraged about that too. Sexually expressive clothes for children are part and parcel of a particular worldview that some people have and espouse. I suppose the parents who buy their children such clothes and the children who want such clothes do not value things like hard work, compassion, self-esteem based on achievemtn, cooperation, striving for excellence. I think sexually expressive clothes for children fit into such a worldview.
I think parents remember the popular girls in high school. Moms are trying to get a jump start on making their girls popular. My daughter is a youth football cheerleader, and let me tell ya, some of those Mom's are brutal.
that's an interesting way to look at it. i'm not sure if i agree or disagree but it's definitely a thinking point...
