Has marketing a lot to answer for with regard to Peadophilia?

Vegeta

Wicknight wrote:

Er, last time I check Lindsy Lohan didn't make child pornography ... unless you call simply being pretty and wearing short shorts "pornography"

well you said turned to child porn not turned to Lohan porn, big difference or does all child porn have to include Lindsy Lohan???

as i said if a guy is whacking off to a pic of a teenage girl who is wearing a short skirt (doesn't have to be naked) then that is child porn

Zombrex

Vegeta wrote:

well you said turned to child porn not turned to Lohan porn, big difference or does all child porn have to include Lindsy Lohan???

Thats my point. There is a big difference between a picture of Lohan in a music video and child pornography. Child pornography normal consists of a child either having sexual intercourse with an adult or another child, or being sexually assaulted by an adult.

Vegeta wrote:

as i said if a guy is whacking off to a pic of a teenage girl who is wearing a short skirt (doesn't have to be naked) then that is child porn

No, its not. Any more than a padophilie wacking off to a Mother-care catalog makes it child pornography.

Pornography is defined by the item itself, not the viewers reaction to it. If that was the case nearly everything woudl be considered porn, because I'm sure there is someone some where who will be turned on by nearly anything

Vegeta you seem to be not really understanding what child porn is and why it is illegal. It is not simply an adult getting arosed by a picture of a child. That isn't it at all. It is a child being made participate in the production of pornographic material. Children cannot concent to this so it is illegal even if they are willing. But often they are forced into it, which makes the crime even worse.

Blub2k4

Wicknight wrote:

Thats my point. There is a big difference between a picture of Lohan in a music video and child pornography. Child pornography normal consists of a child either having sexual intercourse with an adult or another child, or being sexually assaulted by an adult.

Of course there is a big difference, but I am beginning to wonder if you are being deliberately disingenious.

Do you understand what the question is asking in the title?

In the eyes of the law there is no difference between prepubescents and non when it comes to being caught with "Child porn".
The term is a broad one, I honestly believe people dont even know what they are getting het up about when it comes to this emotive subject.

Do you personally see a difference between pics of a pre-pubescent and an illegal teenager?

The Corinthian

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

well you quoted me from a post i made about swimsuits for 2-3 year olds in the disney store.

I wasn’t trying to get at you, merely commenting on the literal meaning of your statement, out of context.

You asked whether we know the difference between a child and a fully-grown woman. Given that legally a 16-year old is still a child in Ireland, but might well look more mature and developed then many 20-year olds, the answer is no. It’s not that simple.

Wicknight wrote:

Child pornography normal consists of a child either having sexual intercourse with an adult or another child, or being sexually assaulted by an adult.

FYI: Child pornography is legally defined, AFAIK, to be materials that appear to depict minors engaged in lewd acts. This means:

• The subject need not be performing a sexual act with another individual, provocative poses would suffice.
• The age of majority rather than the age of consent is used as the standard.
• The subject appears to below the above age rather that is below the above age. As such many ‘barely legal’ pornography could well be deemed illegal if it attempts to portray the subjects to be younger than the above age. Also (although I’m less sure on this) fake child porn - produced either with Photoshop or other imaging software - may also be deemed illegal if it attempts to portray the subjects to be younger than the above age.

Nevyn

Has marketing a lot to answer for with regard to Peadophilia?

No.
It doesn't you are either a pedophile or you are not.

It does how ever push sexualised images to the extent that children wanting to be more grown up will try and portay themselves in a way they see as being grown up.
10 year old girls should not be in short shorts and boobtubes they should be in
age appropiate styles that cover them correctly and are not merely scaled down verisons of adult fashions.

CiaranC

The job of the marketing department in your favourite friendly media conglomerate is not to create patterns of thought and behaviour, but to identify, respond to and exploit them. I would suggest that far from creating the idea of a teenaged girl being a sex object, as per your example, they are simply giving a rather large market what it wants.

Searching the seemier side of the internet for the term 'schoolgirl' illustrates the point rather starkly.

Zombrex

Blub2k4 wrote:

Do you understand what the question is asking in the title?

You seem to be asking does the marketing of teenagers and young adults in clothes considered "sexy" lead to the creation or encouragement of peadophilia. I've already answered that question, twice. The answer was no because that line of thought, in my view, shows a miss-understanding of the sexual orientation of a peadophile.

Blub2k4 wrote:

In the eyes of the law there is no difference between prepubescents and non when it comes to being caught with "Child porn".

In most countries in the world, including the UK and the US where most legitimate pornography is made, it is illegal for some under the age of 18 to be filmed or photographed in a production of pornographic material. It is illegal for someone to be in the possession of pornographic material that displays images of children under the ages of 18. This is considered child pornography, and it is why the legitamate porn studios in the UK and US go to great lengths to verify the ages of all their "actors", and why even with pornographic material that markets the young age of the actors they always carry disclaimers stating that all actors were over the age of consent (18) at the time the film or photographs were taken.

But Britney Spears dressing up in a Catholic School girl outfit, or Lindsey Lohan putting on short shorts and dancing around the MTV Film Awards, is not pornography, child or otherwise.

And I've yet to see any evidence or logic to say that watching Lindsey Lohan/Britney Spears on the telly or seeing the average 17 year old on a Saturday night heading into a school disco wearing a piece of dental floss for a dress, leads otherwise normal adults to desire to view illegal child pornography to partake in paedophilia.

But if there is actual evidence of this link I would be all ears.

Blub2k4 wrote:

Do you personally see a difference between pics of a pre-pubescent and an illegal teenager?

Pictures of what? As I said, is the mother-care catalog "child pornography" if a paedophile gets turned on by flicking through it.

For something to be pornography it has to display something pornographic.

metrovelvet

"Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongye taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta" [Nabokov]

Is the question about how responsible marketing is for peadophilia? Or is it just articulating a latant taste for nymphets that is already there in the culture?

I don't recall anyone being too outraged by Kevin Spacey's lust for Mena Suvari in American Beauty or Britney Spears shaking her booty in her uniform, a long standing fetish of American men who think Catholic girls are whores [note ethnic undertones to that stereotype]. But Elton John performing with the boyscouts... now there was a problem.

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

Dressing them up as adults would probably have little, if not a negative, effect on the peadophilia's desires toward the child.

Yes, but dressing the kids up in stuff that exposes alot of skin and/or emphisises erogenous zones probably will make them more attractive looking to a paedophile [paedophilia is a kind of twisted sexual orientation/fetish].

Adult's (esp. womens) favourite gear at this time and place tends to be that which puts the most flesh on view and accentuates "assets".

Wicknigh wrote:

I don't know, this whole argument seems to be bordering very close to the old chestnut that women should wrap up well so men are not provoke into rape them.

No it's not really that close at all. Adult women and men are not children. They are adults and can make their own judgements about the clothes they want to wear in any given situation, and have much better self-control than children do.
Please, don't make me cry by claiming I'm justifying rape or sexual assault or something...

As you said, children don't want to dress in a certain way to project their sexuality - they want to dress that way because they see adults dressing that way, marketers have convinced it is "cool", their peers reinforce that, and their parents give in to it. How can they project their sexuality when they don't understand it?
Again, as you said, Adults are the ones made uncomfortable.

Of course, in your world-view (which has made my head spin on other threads), if the children themselves see nothing wrong with wearing clothing that sexualises them --> there is nothing wrong with it really --> the adults just have to get over it.

I think that the uncomfortable adults are actually correct here. The children are wrong.

Wicknight wrote:

All this talk of peadophiles or boys being unable to control themselves is really just us, as adults, searching around for a logical reason to justify us feeling uncomfortable about this situation.

Forgetting the paedophiles who are adults anyway and must control their dangerous urges...

Wicknight, you were a boy once, weren't you (you mentioned it above anyway)?
Do you think your self-control has increased since then or not?
Have you not learned the rules of the game where women display acres of flesh and men should keep their eyes firmly on their faces until they have permission to leer or risk being branded scummy perverts/sexual harassers?
Were you worse or better at this game when you were 15 [taking into account that trends like visible thongs and tight jogging pants with slogans on the back were probably not around then:D ]?
I know I was ever so much worse at the game when I was 15...;) - if I even knew a "game" was afoot.
If you are 15 I do apologise!

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

Yes, but dressing the kids up in stuff that exposes alot of skin and/or emphisises erogenous zones probably will make them more attractive looking to a paedophile [paedophilia is a kind of twisted sexual orientation/fetish].

Well there are a few big assumptions here.

Firstly, that assumes a paedophile's sexual orientation is similar to an adults, when most evidence seems to suggest its not. Paedophilia is not simply adult sexual desire transfered to children.

Secondly I would imagine what the child is wearing is the last thing on the paedophiles mind. The vast majority of sexual abuse with minors is planned, carried out over a long period of time and done by someone known to the child. Paedophilies don't choose their victims based on spur of the moment decisions like what the child is wearing at that instant. They choose their victims based on easy access and how likely they are going to be caught.

fly_agaric wrote:

No it's not really that close at all. Adult women and men are not children. They are adults and can make their own judgements about the clothes they want to wear in any given situation, and have much better self-control than children do.

Self-control with regard to what?

fly_agaric wrote:

How can they project their sexuality when they don't understand it?

Thats my point. They aren't because they don't have it yet.

fly_agaric wrote:

Of course, in your world-view (which has made my head spin on other threads), if the children themselves see nothing wrong with wearing clothing that sexualises them --> there is nothing wrong with it really --> the adults just have to get over it.

But its not sexualising them. They aren't having sex, they aren't attempting to attract men (or women) for sex, most don't even understand what real sexuality actually is.

The assumptions you make about why an adult wears sexy clothes (to attract others of the opposite sex) don't hold when applied to children. They are wearing them simply because of fashion.

fly_agaric wrote:

Forgetting the paedophiles who are adults anyway and must control their dangerous urges...

The idea that a paedophile would assault a child wearing what adults would call "sexy" clothes who he/she wouldn't otherwise assault, is frankly and a rather dangerous, and incorrect, assumption.

Just as the idea that a woman wearing sexy clothes provokes a rape that would not have otherwise happened shows a miss-understanding of the reasons rapes happen, assuming a child wearing sexy clothes provokes a sexual assault that would not have otherwise happened shows a miss-understanding of how paedophilia works.

I can certain understand why society would like to think it does, it gives us the false reassurance that we can control and protect our children from these dangers. If we don't let our children dress up like Britney or Lindsy they will be safe from the paedophiles. Its like the idea that if you know a sex offender lives in your area that will some how protect your children from the ten other paedophiles we don't know about in the area.

Unfortunately it doesn't work like that.

fly_agaric wrote:

Have you not learned the rules of the game where women display acres of flesh and men should keep their eyes firmly on their faces until they have permission to leer or risk being branded scummy perverts/sexual harassers?

What? Is this going to turn into another rant against women and how they are all "teases"?

Are you saying you are worried that 15 year old boys are going to be branded sexual perverts because 15 year old girls dress up sexy and the boys can't help stare at them.

Sigh ... I'm not sure I could even be bother arguing against that idea ...

Blub2k4

Ok well Wicknight you appear to understand some of the issues but I would have to assume that you are incapable of joined up thinking, sorry but that's the way it seems. You seem to be taking the rest of it a bit personally so please take at least this as a neutral observation and not an insult.

Ok so let's define paedophilia then.

Do you think that people arrested and charged for viewing "child porn" as defined by yourself in a previous post:

Wicknight wrote:

In most countries in the world, including the UK and the US where most legitimate pornography is made, it is illegal for some under the age of 18 to be filmed or photographed in a production of pornographic material. It is illegal for someone to be in the possession of pornographic material that displays images of children under the ages of 18. This is considered child pornography, and it is why the legitamate porn studios in the UK and US go to great lengths to verify the ages of all their "actors", and why even with pornographic material that markets the young age of the actors they always carry disclaimers stating that all actors were over the age of consent (18) at the time the film or photographs were taken.

Are these people all guilty of paedophilia?

Zombrex

Blub2k4 wrote:

Do you think that people arrested and charged for viewing "child porn" as defined by yourself in a previous post:

Are these people all guilty of paedophilia?

No, because paedophilia is defined as a sexual act with a child. Its a crime, but you actually have to do it to be guilt of it.

What they would be guilty off is posession of child pornography, which also is a crime and quite rightly so.

Blub2k4 wrote:

I would have to assume that you are incapable of joined up thinking,

What you call "joined up thinking" I call unsubstantiated and ill-informed claims about the nature of paedophillia in an effort to give the false illusion that we are in control of the situation and that this is something we can do to protect our children.

But hey, apples and oranges ...

Blub2k4

Wicknight wrote:

No, because paedophilia is defined as a sexual act with a child. Its a crime, but you actually have to do it to be guilt of it.

What they would be guilty off is posession of child pornography, which also is a crime and quite rightly so.

Ok so, that's progress.

So are these people mentally ill or are they lured by the thrill of the forbidden, as is human nature?

Are they all mad or are they merely curious and enabled by the internet/mass media and their possession of a credit card?

Wicknight wrote:

What you call "joined up thinking" I call unsubstantiated and ill-informed claims about the nature of paedophillia in an effort to give the false illusion that we are in control of the situation and that this is something we can do to protect our children.

But hey, apples and oranges ...

So it's paedophilia now? Also stop being personal, your phraseology makes it look like I have an agenda, my only agenda is to discuss something in an adult manner, desist or bow out of the discussion please. I stayed away from this accusation before this, but this comment is too close to the bone.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

No, because paedophilia is defined as a sexual act with a child. Its a crime, but you actually have to do it to be guilt of it.

It’s not. Pedophilia is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to pre-pubescent children. Child pornography would cover any material depicting a child as defined as a person under the age of majority.

Again I would contend that when discussing an alleged increase in the former as demonstrated by the latter that you take into account that they are not the same thing. This is something you have not done.

TBH, I think it very difficult for people to develop informed opinions if they have not actually informed themselves of the facts in the first place.

Zombrex

Blub2k4 wrote:

So are these people mentally ill or are they lured by the thrill of the forbidden, as is human nature?

Paedophilies?

It is a sexual orientation abnormality, and seems to have many causes, from biology reaons like genetics to environmental like previous abuse.

Blub2k4 wrote:

Are they all mad or are they merely curious and enabled by the internet/mass media and their possession of a credit card?

If you are asking do they all abuse children as well as viewing child pornography, the answer is probably no, not all pedophiles actually abuse children. Though that is of course impossible to tell in such a general question.

Blub2k4 wrote:

So it's paedophilia now?

What is it?

This is getting very confusing because I think you don't actually understand the definitions you are using, and I foolishly attempted to work under your assumptions.

Lets start again.

Paedophilia is the paraphilia (sexual orientation) of being arroused by a pre-pubescent child. Someone with this orientation is a pedophile.

Technically being arosed by child pornography is pedophilia, but not in the criminal context you were using it. Paedophilia in this medical sense is not a crime, it is a condition. You are not guilty or innocent of it. You cannot be arrested for being a pedophile.

Paedophilia with relation to an actual crime is the sexual abuse of a pre-pubescent child. So when you say "are they guilty of pedophilia" that is what, I assumed, you were talking about.

The reason chlid pornography is illegal is not because pedophilies become arosed by it, it is because by definition a child had to be abused in the making of it.

I would also point out, as I think TC did already, paedophilia concerns only the arosal due to pre-pubscent children.

If a man is getting turned on by watching someone like Britney Spears or Lindsy Lohan dancing around a stage, that is not pedophilia. It is ephebophilia, the arosual of post-pubscent adolesant. They are different conditions. And it is arguable if it is even ephehophilia, since personalities like Spears or Lohan are quite physically developed, as much as you would find in an early adult.

So what exactly are you talking about here? You seem to be purposefully trying to trip me up.

What exactly do you think I'm saying that you find so objectionable? Do you think I am attempting to condone child pornography or something?

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

It’s not. Pedophilia is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to pre-pubescent children.

You are, as always, correct TC

I used that definition because Blub2k4 was using the term in relation to a crime, and in general use paedophilia when used in relation to a crime is the sexual abuse of a child.

Blub2k4 was using the term as a verb, when paedophilia is not something you do it is technically something that happens to you (arosual in response to something)

The common use of paedophilia as a verb in relation to a crime is sexual abuse of a child, though as you point out this is technically incorrect.

So I will only use the technically correct definitions from now on, and hope it doesn't lead to even more confusion

The Corinthian wrote:

TBH, I think it very difficult for people to develop informed opinions if they have not actually informed themselves of the facts in the first place.

I whole heartly agree with that statement!

Especially considering, as I think you have already pointed out, I think Blub2k4 is actually talking about ephebophilia, rather than paedophilia.

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

Firstly, that assumes a paedophile's sexual orientation is similar to an adults, when most evidence seems to suggest its not. Paedophilia is not simply adult sexual desire transfered to children.

I assumed it was a deviant sexual orientation - that was all.
If it is sexual desire is it not stimulated by seeing the object of attraction in revealing clothes? Am I wrong about this?

Wicknight wrote:

Secondly I would imagine what the child is wearing is the last thing on the paedophiles mind. The vast majority of sexual abuse with minors is planned, carried out over a long period of time and done by someone known to the child. Paedophilies don't choose their victims based on spur of the moment decisions like what the child is wearing at that instant. They choose their victims based on easy access and how likely they are going to be caught.

I didn't think that a paedophile would single out X child because of the way they are dressed and I never said that. Obviously, if they decide to break the law, getting away with it is their biggest concern.

What I was thinking about was the effect of dressing children in this way on the mental state of paedophiles. I would worry that it may make them more likely to act on their urges.

I suppose this like the unproven (AFAIK) belief that the wrong kind of people can be made more likely to commit acts of violence or sexual assault by watching excessive amounts of ultra-violent films/very hardcore pornography. No doubt you will now say "I don't know why I bother" etc etc

Wicknight wrote:

Self-control with regard to what?

Apologies. I was trying to fit two ideas into that paragraph.
The self-control bit was referring to men vs boys - as per the end of the post.

Wicknight wrote:

But its not sexualising them.

Here we go again - more "the child's perspective is equally (or in this case more?) valid" garbage arising from your extreme relativist take on the world.

The children for their own [or marketers'] reasons wear clothes that would be attractive in a sexual way if an adult was wearing them - creating the discomfort and unease among adults which you referred to and then dismissed.

Wicknight wrote:

The idea that a paedophile would assault a child wearing what adults would call "sexy" clothes who he/she wouldn't otherwise assault, is frankly and a rather dangerous, and incorrect, assumption.

Where did I make that assumption? My only assumption [using normal sexual attractions as a reference] was that the paedophile would be stimulated by seeing the child dressed in revealing clothes. Again - is this wrong?
Of course they won't act on it at that particular moment with that particular child unless they badly want to go to jail.

Wicknight wrote:

If we don't let our children dress up like Britney or Lindsy they will be safe from the paedophiles.

The irony is that both the obsession with the dangers of paedophiles (you never know where they might strike!) and the sexualisation of children are both modern sicknesses. I wonder if they are related?

Wicknight wrote:

What? Is this going to turn into another rant against women and how they are all "teases"?

I'm sure nothing like that will happen to this thread under your eagle-eye.:rolleyes:

Wicknight wrote:

Are you saying you are worried that 15 year old boys are going to be branded sexual perverts because 15 year old girls dress up sexy and the boys can't help stare at them.

No - I have other worries at the moment. I was just trying to show that 15 year old boys may have less self-control than adult men when confronted with scantily-clad members of the opposite sex.

It may cause unwanted actions (leering, comments, maybe even touching...) which would indeed be considered sexual harassment at least, if it were a man doing the same to a woman in the work place.

Dudess

Paedophiles find children desirable - their childlike qualities, their innocence. These are the very things that arouse them. Paedophiles are not going to be turned on by a kid whose appearance has adult qualities. They are only going to be interested in an undeveloped kid wearing children's clothing, doing kiddie stuff. It's missing the point to assume that teenage girls who are underage, yes, but still have a womanly appearance, are going to do it for paedophiles. The Britneys, Billies etc are likely to appeal to middle-aged, heterosexual men. And isn't that inevitable when they're made up to look like women? Of course it's most unappetising to think of a grandfather getting turned on by jailbait, but that doesn't make him a paedophile.

ferdi

man i hate these little girls aged 10 - 14 being dressed up like slappers by their parents. mini skirts, hooker bootes, boobtubes. its sick and wrong. the manufactures of these clothes should be closed down and the parents done for abuse.

fly_agaric

Dudess wrote:

Paedophiles find children desirable - their childlike qualities, their innocence. These are the very things that arouse them. Paedophiles are not going to be turned on by a kid whose appearance has adult qualities. They are only going to be interested in an undeveloped kid wearing children's clothing, doing kiddie stuff. It's missing the point to assume that teenage girls who are underage, yes, but still have a womanly appearance, are going to do it for paedophiles. The Britneys, Billies etc are likely to appeal to middle-aged, heterosexual men. And isn't that inevitable when they're made up to look like women? Of course it's most unappetising to think of a grandfather getting turned on by jailbait, but that doesn't make him a paedophile.

Interesting. It is funny that [the idea that paedophiles might have a preference for a "childish" child and the tacky adult clothing would go against that] hadn't occurred to me.
Maybe this means I don't understand how paedophiles think very well.

That make me feel a bit better - even if it doesn't particularly help my arguments against young children being dressed up in sleazy adult gear.:D

Zombrex

ferdi wrote:

its sick and wrong.

Why?

They aren't having sex, they don't even know what sex properly, or are aware they will some day have sexual desires. Where does the harm come from? How is it any different from a child in a bathing suit, or a young girl running around topless?

Seriously, I'm not being smart. I'm not saying there is no harm, but I can't really see where it is coming from. I don't think people have really thought about the logic in saying that this is "sick and wrong".

It seems to me that we are projecting our assumptions about adults who wear clothes (you said "dress like slappers" in your post) like this onto children who wear clothes like this. And that upsets us because we don't like to associate something sexual with children.

But it isn't something sexual when it is put in the context of children. These children are not having sex. They are not "slappers" even if you think they are dressing like one.

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

Here we go again - more "the child's perspective is equally (or in this case more?) valid" garbage arising from your extreme relativist take on the world.

The children for their own [or marketers'] reasons wear clothes that would be attractive in a sexual way if an adult was wearing them - creating the discomfort and unease among adults which you referred to and then dismissed.

Thats not the child's problem, nor is the child the one with the issues.

Are you seriously suggesting that children should not dress the way they want to because adults cannot handle the distinction between a sexy looking adult and a "sexy" looking child? And because it makes us uncomfortable it shouldn't be allowed?

fly_agaric wrote:

Where did I make that assumption? My only assumption [using normal sexual attractions as a reference] was that the paedophile would be stimulated by seeing the child dressed in revealing clothes. Again - is this wrong?

Yes.

But even if were correct, it is not a reason to restrict what a child wears, any more than requiring adult women to wear full head scarfs is a reasonable response to the issue of rape.

fly_agaric wrote:

It may cause unwanted actions (leering, comments, maybe even touching...) which would indeed be considered sexual harassment at least, if it were a man doing the same to a woman in the work place.

I think its considered sexual harrashment is a teenager is doing it too.

Are you say it is harder for teenage boys to not sexual harrash or sexual assault teenage girls than it is for men to resist the urges to sexual harrash or assult adult women? And therefore these girls should be more careful of what they dress up in so they don't provoke this (seemingly hard to restrain) response from boys?

Or have I got your possition completely wrong?

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

Thats not the child's problem, nor is the child the one with the issues.

Are you seriously suggesting that children should not dress the way they want to because adults cannot handle the distinction between a sexy looking adult and a "sexy" looking child? And because it makes us uncomfortable it shouldn't be allowed?

Okay Wicknight. I give up. There is no point in arguing about this with someone as open minded and tolerant as you are when it comes to these things.

If you have any girls I hope there is some justice in the world and they pester you into buying them all latest Playboy merchandise and a pair of tracksuit bottoms that says "juicy" on the arse!:D

Wicknight wrote:

I think its considered sexual harrashment is a teenager is doing it too.

Hmmm - so there are limits to your tolerance. Do you think the full weight of adult law should be brought to bear on these boys?
That seems to be the attitude they are starting to adopt in the UK.

Wicknight wrote:

Are you say it is harder for teenage boys to not sexual harrash or sexual assault teenage girls than it is for men to resist the urges to sexual harrash or assult adult women? And therefore these girls should be more careful of what they dress up in so they don't provoke this (seemingly hard to restrain) response from boys?

Or have I got your possition completely wrong?

You have my position completely right.
The girls and boys involved (we are discussing children around puberty and young teenagers here) are not adults yet so the comparison to the "she was a tease/asking for it" stuff put out sometimes as a lame excuse for sexual harassment/assault by men does not apply here.

Nevyn

oh so you should have named this to be the media's negative imapct on the emerging post pubeset teen and the fashionin go them as a sex object for thier peers and adults alike.

That is a differnt debate entirely.

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

Okay Wicknight. I give up. There is no point in arguing about this with someone as open minded and tolerant as you are when it comes to these things.

It not my fault you seem unable to properly explain your position, beyond a general "its wrong, and you should just understand why"

You argument of this being a bad thing seem very weak and sensationist, along the lines of boys won't be able to stop themselves from sexually assaulting girls in "sexy" outfits.

My position is nothing to do with tolerance, it is to do with not accepting that as true.

fly_agaric wrote:

If you have any girls I hope there is some justice in the world and they pester you into buying them all latest Playboy merchandise and a pair of tracksuit bottoms that says "juicy" on the arse!:D

I probably won't care, they can wear what they like so long as it keeps them warm and dry in the Irish weather.

I would be interested to know what you think would happen if I allowed my daughter to leave the house in a t-shirt with the Playboy logo, and a tracksuit that says "Juicy" on it. Will my daughter be sexually assault by 15 year olds in an uncontrollable fit of lust on the bus into school?

fly_agaric wrote:

Hmmm - so there are limits to your tolerance.

Yes fly_agaric, for some mad reason my "tolerance" for allowing people to wear the clothes they want to wear doesn't extend to allowing someone to sexual assault people.

Strange that isn't it :rolleyes:

fly_agaric wrote:

Do you think the full weight of adult law should be brought to bear on these boys?

I think the "full weight of the law" should be brought to anyone, male female, adult or teenager, who sexually assault another person. Of course the "full weight of the law" will be different for a minor than for an adult.

Do you think that these boys should be let off with a slap on the wrist because they are teenagers and therefore, under you logic, cannot control themselves around women?

Maybe we should lock the girls up for "disturbing the peace" ...

fly_agaric wrote:

You have my position completely right.

Well I think your position is nonsense, TBH

Amazing as it sounds I was a teenager once, and the girls in my class wore pretty skimpy outfits when they went to the local discos, f**k me boots, short skirts etc (this was the early 90s) and for some amazing reason me and my male friends were still able to not sexual assault them! I know, I know hard to believe.

I don't know how we managed to resist the urges, maybe Jesus was in our hearts or something :rolleyes:

fly_agaric wrote:

The girls and boys involved (we are discussing children around puberty and young teenagers here) are not adults yet so the comparison to the "she was a tease/asking for it" stuff put out sometimes as a lame excuse for sexual harassment/assault by men does not apply here.

So these girls are "teasing/asking for it", and the poor boys are just unable to control themselves around these girls, the poor darlings ...

I would imagine (hope at least) you don't have much support for that position. But you never know in this hysterical society we live in these days.

Women are evil after all, they tempt men into doing bad things, says so in the Bible

fly_agaric

Thaedydal - yes - this has very little to do with the opening post at this point. Sorry about that, but I am almost done.

Wicknight, you just can't help distorting peoples words, or reading beyond what is written can you? You take what I posted to nonsensical extremes so you can characterise it as ridiculous. You don't deserve any reply really.

I remember the last thread you started your bullshít on you were busy strawmanning me as a racist goon (I suppose I am in comparision to your right-on holiness), now you paint me as a misogynist Jesus-freak who prays for the revival of strict public decency laws and the scold's bridle.

Report away if you want and be damned to you!

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

You take what I posted to nonsensical extremes so you can characterise it as ridiculous.

But fly I'm not taking it to the extreme, you are.

You talk as if girls dressing in "sexy" clothes is causing (or will cause) a wave of sexual frustrated boys to sexually harrass or assult girls because they cannot control their raging hormones. That is the extreme that you present as a reason to restrict or curtail what all girls should be allowed to dress up in, I imagine for their own protection from these raging boys (though you seemed to suggest it was more the girls fault than the boys, who cannot control, nor are expected to control, themselves)

And, as you now point out, that extreme is ridculous. I was a 15 year old boy, I found myself quite capable of controling my emerging sexual desires. So did all of my friends. While you hear about poor girls being assaulted or raped these events are, in the grand scheme of things, thankfully, rare.

So if that extreme is ridiculous, what reason have you left to justify your position that it is the girls who should not dress in this manner?

You mentioned that it might be hard for a boy not to stare at a girl in a sexy outfit, or keep eye contact with her when she is talking. I wasn't sure if you were joking about that or actually serious, because last time I checked distracting men from other things was not a value reason for stopping women or girls doing anything, including dressing how they want to dress. And if that is the only argument you have left for why girls shouldn't dress as they please then that is a very very weak argument.

It's not really my fault your points don't hold water when actually examined.

While you will probably not admit it, and argue that they don't, your arguments follow the same line that has been taken against women since the dawn of time, since Eve tempted Adam with the apple. That being that women, through there actions and behaviour, provoke men to do things bad things that they have little control over. And therefore it is the woman who is responsible for making sure this doesn't happen.

Girls should not dress as they like because it will cause boys to do bad things they can't control

Sorry fly, but that position, be it extreme examples of sexual assault, or minor examples of men not being able to stop themselves staring at a girls breasts while she talks to him, just doesn't "fly" with me. Basically, its crap.

BTW you still have explained what actually happens if I let my (future) 15 year old daughter out of the house wearing a playboy t-shirt and a track-suit bottoms that say "Juicy" ....

Bottle_of_Smoke

Blub2k4 wrote:

Do you personally see a difference between pics of a pre-pubescent and an illegal teenager?

Just wanna check were you being ironic here? Because there's a huge difference!

14/15 year olds have reproductive features, so men cannot be held responsible if they're anyway attracted to them, it's in our genes.

However they should know that any sort of sexual relationship is completely inappropriate as the teen doesn't have the emotional capacity to be involved with a fully grown man. So if a man has consentual sex with a 14 year old he should not be considered a Paedophile but someone who took advantage of a girl's youth.

When I read the OP I was gonna go into more detailo but Wicknight has said everything I was going to. Cheers for pointing out that ephebophilia term, never knew it existed.

And eh....

Is it a natural progression when you see the underage Britney, showing it all off and shaking her thing, to want to see her naked? Is it healthy at all that she be marketed sexually when the logical conclusion of this is illegal?

That's quite possibly the most retarded thing I've ever heard. It's already been debated I just wanted you to know.

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

But fly I'm not taking it to the extreme, you are.

You talk as if girls dressing in "sexy" clothes is causing (or will cause) a wave of sexual frustrated boys to sexually harrass or assult girls because they cannot control their raging hormones. That is the extreme that you present as a reason to restrict or curtail what all girls should be allowed to dress up in, I imagine for their own protection from these raging boys (though you seemed to suggest it was more the girls fault than the boys, who cannot control, nor are expected to control, themselves)

And, as you now point out, that extreme is ridculous. I was a 15 year old boy, I found myself quite capable of controling my emerging sexual desires. So did all of my friends. While you hear about poor girls being assaulted or raped these events are, in the grand scheme of things, thankfully, rare.

So if that extreme is ridiculous, what reason have you left to justify your position that it is the girls who should not dress in this manner?

Neat little logical trap! Or I suppose it would be if these extremes were actually what I had posted instead of your own embellishments, the manure excreted from an overactive anus somewhere inside your (I'm sure) massive forehead.
Lets compare:

You say:
"a wave of sexual frustrated boys"
I say
"boys may have less self control than adult men"..it may lead (i.e. in some cases - not all, not the majority, but maybe enough that there is a difference between now and before these trends in girls' clothing began)

You say:
"to restrict or curtail what all girls should be allowed to dress up in"

Parents should decide what girls dress in.
While I personally would not agree with the choices of some parents (who perhaps think like you) - it is not for me or the government to order them what to do.

You say:
"(though you seemed to suggest it was more the girls fault than the boys, who cannot control, nor are expected to control, themselves)"

I never blamed "girls" at any point.
I never said or even suggested that boys were not capable of controlling themselves or that they should be absolved of all blame where harassment, or assaults occur.

Well done, you fabricated all that by yourself.

Wicknight wrote:

While you will probably not admit it, and argue that they don't, your arguments follow the same line that has been taken against women since the dawn of time, since Eve tempted Adam with the apple. That being that women, through there actions and behaviour, provoke men to do things bad things that they have little control over. And therefore it is the woman who is responsible for making sure this doesn't happen.

Girls should not dress as they like because it will cause boys to do bad things they can't control

Sorry fly, but that position, be it extreme examples of sexual assault, or minor examples of men not being able to stop themselves staring at a girls breasts while she talks to him, just doesn't "fly" with me. Basically, its crap.

Wicknight, the superficial similarity of two arguments does not mean they are identical. Neither is the extreme "case" [blaming the clothes women wear for rape and sexual assault - "she was asking for it"] and the minor "case" [women should dress more modestly in work than normally (most do - funny that!) to make things a bit easier on men] the same.

Same as how the manure generated by your noggin as you slide things over the slippery slope to absurdity-land is not the same as what I posted.

If you really can't see what and where the differences are - so be it.

I hope you are not a judge or something IRL...
May God help us all if you are!

Wicknight wrote:

BTW you still have explained what actually happens if I let my (future) 15 year old daughter out of the house wearing a playboy t-shirt and a track-suit bottoms that say "Juicy" ....

I noticed you picked the upper age limit rather than the lower...
What about 10 or 11?:rolleyes:

Maybe you'll feel a bit less certain and confident in your opinion that "girls should wear exactly what they like" and those who would stop them [I repeat, not me, not the govt., not boys - their parents:eek: ] are actively engaging in the repression of women.

Maybe you'll feel a bit of that uncertainty in your own mind and even if you change your opinion I'm sure you will find a way to rationalise it.

I doubt it'll put a serious dent in your cocksure and self-righteous attitudes.

More's the pity.:(

Anyway, Wicknight believes that parents who don't let their children/young teenage girls out in micro-shorts and a crop top even though they think these things look really cute and want to wear them badly are old-style patriarchs and bible-beaters!

HA HA...hooow stupid!

I know that's not what you said at all but if you want to attack windmills, why can't I play too?

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

I noticed you picked the upper age limit rather than the lower...
What about 10 or 11?:rolleyes:

Ok, what about 10 or 11?

You still have not answered the question .... what happens?