Originally Posted By ecdc >>Okay, so at what point does it stop being gross<< For me it's less about the clothing and more that they're just fanning the flames. A five year old with a bare midriff isn't sexual. At all. So whether it's the usual Outrage Bots ready to boycott the latest store for selling clothing they don't like (seriously, who teaches modesty to a freaking five year old!), or whether it's the parents that enroll their five year olds into pageants, it's contributing to the same problem.
Originally Posted By ecdc In other words, telling a five year old to be modest or telling her to strut her stuff is telling her she's a sexualized object.
Originally Posted By utahjosh What about the 12 year old? The 14 year old? At what point do we say something, so she is being wise in her decisions?
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>How about when moms put toddlers out there for pageants and as part of their routine, they emulate bumping and grinding type moves? The parents seem to find it adorable, I think it's gross and wrong. It must be my problem.<<< No, in fact I believe that those parents should be charged with child abuse. It's not just a matter about what a young teen wears, because a lot of that is dictated by the wonderful world of fashion. However, if a parent has done their job at all they have made an attempt to have there children have pride in themselves and not to allow themselves to just be sexual objects. However, that process starts at a very young age. If they haven't gotten that message by the time they become teenagers, there is a good chance that they will slip into a very deep void that is hard to pull out of. Sorry, for the ramble...having two daughters it was always a priority for me to make sure that they knew how important they were. How they could do anything they wanted, if they wanted. It's a very sensitive topic to me. I may agree with the TSA guy in principal, but I disagree with his feeling that he had any authority to take it upon himself to inform her. Just not any of his business. >>>In other words, telling a five year old to be modest or telling her to strut her stuff is telling her she's a sexualized object.<<< I'm not sure what you are trying to convey there, but on the surface to me those two actions have completely different results. Strut her stuff does indeed scream sexualized object. Teaching them modesty is an exercise in pointing out self worth and the importance of there own bodies and that that body is theirs alone and does not need to be shared until one is ready to share it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "In other words, telling a five year old to be modest or telling her to strut her stuff is telling her she's a sexualized object." But again, at 15 do we want low cleavage and midriffs like this girl had? The angle on the picture in question doesn't lend itself to what I'm about to say, but most girls that wear that type of outfit wear the waist line pretty low, low to the point of well, you get the idea. The bare midriff isn't what it used to be. It used to be a bare torso or mid stomach. Now it's bare far below the belly button past the waistline. That's not a look for a 15 year old.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "At what point do we say something, so she is being wise in her decisions?" It's her parents' place to say something, if they seem it appropriate. Not some TSA guy.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "You looked at the picture and noticed bare midriff and cleavage? I think that says more about you than it does about her. The midriff was just a sliver and you really have to look hard to see any cleavage. That outfit is downright conservative." I think you need to back off the personal comments right now.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance For what it's worth, I thought the picture may have shown her after she "covered up". Maybe before she wasn't wearing the jacket.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "And all of this happens because Female Skin = Sexuality in American culture. The exception that proves the rule? How do we treat obese women who show too much skin in public? We shame them. We're disgusted by them. We make cruel jokes at their expense." Don't we do the same to men?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Teaching them modesty is an exercise in pointing out self worth and the importance of there own bodies and that that body is theirs alone and does not need to be shared until one is ready to share it.<< Very well said.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance ecdc, I get what you're saying and mostly agree. It just seems like you're totally disregarding biology in all of this. More skin showing on men also usually equals sex as well. To a lesser degree, but I think that's mostly because biologically women are less preoccupied with sex because they are programmed differently then men.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance ">>Don't we do the same to men?<< Not by a longshot." Oh please. Yes we do. At some point every show on television or a movie has shown a large man in a speedo, and then followed by a million jokes at his expense.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance To prove my point, let's do a little test. My blood pressure on average is around 120/80. Now let's test it while looking at a fully clothed picture of Johnny Depp. 150/100. Hmmmm interesting. Now let's look at one without his shirt on. 200/180. Wow! Look at those results!!! You really can't deny that.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Oh please. Yes we do<< No, we don't. It's the equivalent of me saying "A gun shot wound will cause you to bleed" and you reply with, "Well a shaving nick will too!" They are nowhere in the same league or frequency. Men are not nearly as sexualized as women and are much less frequently evaluated based solely on their appearance. Culturally speaking, for men, how they look and their level of attractiveness is an appendage to who they are; for women, it is the core thing we judge them on.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance That's true, but you don't think that has ANYTHING to do with biology? Thin, healthy, attractive women are more likely to give birth to healthy babies. Men's weight and health aren't as important to pregnancy sustainability/baby being born healthy.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Thin, healthy, attractive women are more likely to give birth to healthy babies.> I think "thin" is not quite right. I think "child bearing hips" and a body weight somewhere between what current American culture would term "fit" and "zaftig" is the ideal weight for bearing healthy babies. a.k.a. "heavier than the current notions of 'hot.'"
Originally Posted By Terminus Between "fit" and "zaftig" is probably what I consider hot... If I knew what zaftig meant, and wasn't too lazy to look, I could probably say for sure. I'm sure all of this is affected a lot by perspective. If I had a daughter (I don't, only a son), I'd probably be super worried about what she was wearing and so on, but when I first clicked on the picture, I didn't see anything wrong. Seemed pretty normal to me. I guess living in Southern California maybe affects my views on what is appropriate or not? Seems pretty normal for what mid-teens wear. I didn't think twice about it until people starting mentioning bare midriffs and stuff, then went back and said, "Oh yeah, I guess so..." ...
