It is a sad note on western culture that this stuff is around. I think part of the problem is that in the name of equality we've narrowed our definition of what it is to be female. What I mean is that culturally the only difference we value in a women is her sexuality. Any other difference is seen as weakness and they are encouraged to think and act more like men. Equality is suppose to equal same.
Little boys want to be "manly" and little girls want to be "feminine". Socially our gender is probably the first group we identify our selves with outside of our families. For a little boy he can express his manhood by being tough or strong or fastest. Little girls have a tougher time expressing their femininity. That is because the only thing of apparent value that distinguishes a female from a male in our society is her sexuality.
Little girls should want to look pretty. They shouldn't be caring about how their butt looks in the jeans they are wearing.
The problem with being the morality police is that following through on a threat to go away denies you the opportunity to try and force your own morals onto others.
I think it's a bit disturbing that we're at the point where we have to make this into a big deal. Girls want to look 'pretty', so naturally this sort of clothing would appeal to them. I don't think they're thinking about impressing boys (since they still think boys are gross at that age).
Dunno, I have a hard time buying into the outrage over this. Girls want to be pretty. This stuff is frilly and shiny and silky and whatever. Girls have, since the beginning of time, associated those properties with being girly and pretty. I don't think this would even be an issue if we could count on parents to actually raise their children properly in the first place. Instead we're relying on the rest of society to tell our children what's acceptable and what's not. Then we get all up in arms when society drops the ball and we're left to deal with the repercussions.
As far as pedophiles are concerned, that's a bit of a strange way to look at this. Do pedophiles care how a girl is dressed? I thought it was an age / predatory / f--ked-in-the-head sort of thing that can really only be solved by bashing their heads against a rock until all the stupid leaks out.
Am I the only one who finds these relatively inoffensive? It is North American culture (as well as others) that has stigmatised and sexualised skin. In fact these girls are not showing anything you wouldn't see (from other girls their age) at the swimming pool.
In some cultures, showing a second eye is too much. In others, all-out nudity is okay. There's no absolute line that I see being crossed here, it's just more than we're comfortable with as a result of our environment. It is the perspective of the viewer that determines whether images like these have sexual connotations.
Ultimately the line drawn at 18 is equally arbitrary. Set it too low and you're talking about people who really aren't able to give consent. Too high, and you're repressing a segment of the population. Contrary to what the conservatives in our society believes, sexuality (like climate change) is not something you can legislate away. It's something that a person develops as a course of their natural growth, some earlier than others. What you can do is educate young people so that they are prepared for it and give them the knowledge they require to deal with their sexuality in the most responsible manner possible.
Edit: I guess not. Didn't see the post above until after this was submitted.
I understand where you two are coming from, but isnt the point of lingerie inherently sexual? Thats why its classed differently as regular undergarments? Because if thats the case, then yeah, it it is the sexualization of a demographic that we as a society shouldnt want sexualized.
The argument of; 'its no different than what you'd see at a pool' is another one. Why are pre-teens wearing bikinis? Is it convenience? Perhaps thats another issue, but another way of looking at it is:
Okay, you'd see kids wearing bikinis at the pool, in what situation are you going to be seeing these children wearing their toddler lingerie? Isnt lingerie designed to be 'shown off' but in private? At least bikinis, regardless of age, serve as a bathing suit. I dont understand the utility of lingerie on children, but it doesnt seem to make sense from a social or practical standpoint.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
I understand where you two are coming from, but isnt the point of lingerie inherently sexual? Thats why its classed differently as regular undergarments? Because if thats the case, then yeah, it it is the sexualization of a demographic that we as a society shouldnt want sexualized.
Once upon a time, I had a t-shirt that looked like you were wearing a tuxedo - sort of. It had a silk-screened tie and silk-screened buttons and stuff, but it was still a t-shirt. It was bad ass and got all the bitches (I'm kidding). But you would never get an invite to a formal dinner party and think "Hey, this shirt is perfectly suitable for junior to wear to this event - I mean, it's based off a tuxedo, right?"
That's what I find laughable about making a big deal out of this - this isn't lingerie. It's not marketed as lingerie and if you did buy it for them, you wouldn't say "I bought my 4 year old daughter some cute lingerie today" lest another parent with far more sense about their person than you overhears and smacks you so hard your eyes cross.
Like my tuxedo t-shirt story (I actually did have one as a child, thanks mom), something being inspired by something else does not automatically make it that thing. It's also inspired by 'loungewear' which is stuff that is comfortable to lounge around the house in but is also pretty and girly and all that. You wouldn't wear lingerie or loungewear outside the house so it's hard to see what the problem is - kids aren't going to show up in school wearing this stuff.
It's classed differently from regular undergarments because it's trying to address a perceived demand in the marketplace for this sort of product. "Hey parents, want something cute and girly for your daughter to wear that'll make them feel pretty?" It's marketing, and the fact that we're talking about it evidently gives merit to said marketing.
You'll notice I keep saying "pretty" and "girly", and that's because that's all girls at that age really care about. We know this, the manufacturer knows this. But it's the media's knee-jerk reaction to the word 'lingerie' without taking heed of the context that has caused this much of an issue to be raised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
The argument of; 'its no different than what you'd see at a pool' is another one. Why are pre-teens wearing bikinis? Is it convenience? Perhaps thats another issue, but another way of looking at it is:
Okay, you'd see kids wearing bikinis at the pool, in what situation are you going to be seeing these children wearing their toddler lingerie? Isnt lingerie designed to be 'shown off' but in private? At least bikinis, regardless of age, serve as a bathing suit. I dont understand the utility of lingerie on children, but it doesnt seem to make sense from a social or practical standpoint.
Why are pre-teens wearing bikinis? Have you ever jumped into a pool wearing a shirt and pants before? Wet cloth doesn't feel great against the skin, in fact it's sort of a pain in the arse. The idea of a bathing suit is to cover-up the no-no bits while enjoying the water comfortably as well as increasing skin exposure to the sun which also feels good (unless you get too much and then it hurts like a b-----d and you take on the appearance of a lobster). That goes for men and women, children and adults. Now, unlike a bikini, unless their parents are braindead, they won't be wearing this stuff outside the house.
When are they going to wear this stuff? Consider that - basically - this is glorified underwear that actually covers up more than normal underwear does, owing to the other side of the inspiration coming from 'loungewear'. They'll wear it to slumber parties at friends places where all they do is eat popcorn, paint each other's nails and watch Hanna Montana or whatever they're obsessing about now that some poor parent is being forced to listen to them talk about endlessly.
I think it's pretty simple. If the clothing is designed in a way that is meant to cause the illusion of child having secondary sexual characteristics, or draws attention to areas that biologically meant to attract a mate, then that is a little too far. Certain designs and materials are purposely used in lingerie to stoke a man's libido.
I'm not really a conservative, but I think there is a line that can be crossed. I can't say I really looked at these particular pictures though to see if they cross the line. I'd really rather not.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 08-19-2011 at 09:31 PM.
The problem with being the morality police is that following through on a threat to go away denies you the opportunity to try and force your own morals onto others.
Sounds like you are trying to set some kind of rules now.
I understand where you two are coming from, but isnt the point of lingerie inherently sexual? Thats why its classed differently as regular undergarments? Because if thats the case, then yeah, it it is the sexualization of a demographic that we as a society shouldnt want sexualized.
Is the problem the clothes themselves, or that they are being called lingerie? If it's the latter, it's kind of a mistranslation. "Lingerie" doesn't have those sexual connotations in French. And to sell this clothing line, it makes sense to produce pictures of models wearing it. Not all that different from diaper ads, IMO.
Is the problem the clothes themselves, or that they are being called lingerie? If it's the latter, it's kind of a mistranslation. "Lingerie" doesn't have those sexual connotations in French. And to sell this clothing line, it makes sense to produce pictures of models wearing it. Not all that different from diaper ads, IMO.
To me its the clothes themselves and not the tag, to me they look like they're made to mimic what you'd see at Vic Secret.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Is the problem the clothes themselves, or that they are being called lingerie? If it's the latter, it's kind of a mistranslation. "Lingerie" doesn't have those sexual connotations in French. And to sell this clothing line, it makes sense to produce pictures of models wearing it. Not all that different from diaper ads, IMO.
The problem is both the clothing and the poses of young girls in said clothing that sexualizes them. Kids shouldn't be sexualized. Peroid. If a diaper ad displayed a kid in a clearly sexual pose, I would have the same objection.
Sell it all you want, I think it is absurd, but as soon as you start taking kids and having photos like that taken of them AND POSTED ON THE INTERNET and say it is ok, then that is screwed up.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
(I couldn't find the thread so I actually searched "boston pizza prostitutes)
Hahaha that was a good read.
Best post by far was "Well on one had you have a third-world, backwards place where the women have moustaches and on the other you have Afghanistan. Tough call."
Literally had me in tears.
The Following User Says Thank You to puckluck For This Useful Post:
It is a sad note on western culture that this stuff is around. I think part of the problem is that in the name of equality we've narrowed our definition of what it is to be female. What I mean is that culturally the only difference we value in a women is her sexuality. Any other difference is seen as weakness and they are encouraged to think and act more like men. Equality is suppose to equal same.
Clearly you have no understanding of gender equality actually means.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
