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

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

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)

And?

You say that but anytime I've tried to pin you down to an actual point of saying that you duck out, reverse and say "hold on I'm not saying anything"

So are you just saying things with no point to them.

Self control in relation to what? What will this minority of boys do? And what is the answer to what these boys will do?

fly_agaric wrote:

Parents should decide what girls dress in.

Again you duck away from an actual point. Parents should decide what girls wear, so what would be your justification, as a parent, for not letting your girls wear these outfits? What will happen to her if you do?

You don't think girls should dress like this. Because .... ?

What will happen to your girls (or my girls, or anyones girls) if they dress like this?

fly_agaric wrote:

I never blamed "girls" at any point.

Well you say the boys can't control themselves, and it is the girls who cause these responses in girls. So is it not the girls responsibility then?

fly_agaric wrote:

I never said that boys were not capable of controlling themselves or that they should be absolved of all blame where harassment, or assaults occur.

You said they have less self-control (how is it "less" if they are still perfectly capable of controling themselves).

Any then you said to me would I throw the weight of the law against these boys? You obviously wouldn't. Why not? If they are fully responsibile for what they do, and fully capable of controlling themselves, why not through the weight of the law against them if they sexual harrass or assault someone?

fly_agaric wrote:

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.

So your position is girls shouldn't dress sexy, not because of what might happen to them, but simple because it makes it easier on men to ... what exactly? Play football? Build tree houses? What?

You are probably going to scream!! that I have completely missed your point. It would be easier if you actually stated your point, instead of just dancing around any attempt I make to tie down your point.

(BTW, I've no idea where you go thte idea that women don't dress "sexy" in work to make it easier on the men to get work done)

fly_agaric wrote:

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.

I'm actually dragging you back from absurdity land. You posts started off talking about boys should be responsible for unwanted sexual harrassment towards girls ...

fly_agaric It may cause unwanted actions (leering, comments, maybe even touching...)

fly_agaricHmmm - so there are limits to your tolerance. Do you think the full weight of adult law should be brought to bear on these boys?

You don't? Why?

Help me out here fly_agaric, because you contractions are all over the place

Girls are not responsible for the actions cause by how they dress, but they should dress modestly for the sake of the boys .. what?

Boys have less self control around sexy dress girls than men which can lead to unwanted sexual contact and the full weight of the law should not be brought against them (because they have less self-control presumably??) But boys perfectly able to control themsleves, and should take full responsibility for any unwanted advances they make ... what?

Parents are responsible for dressing their children anyway they like, but dressing them too "sexy" is wrong ... what?

This all goes back to my earlier post about how people feel this is wrong but they actually have no idea why, logically, this is wrong.

All you have done is mention boys lack of self control? So? What happens, who is responsible and what should be done?

And you still have answered what actually happens to my 15 ... 11... 5 year old daughter who wears a playboy t-shirt and "Juicy" tracksuit ...

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

And?

You say that but anytime I've tried to pin you down to an actual point of saying that you duck out, reverse and say "hold on I'm not saying anything"

So are you just saying things with no point to them.

Self control in relation to what? What will this minority of boys do? And what is the answer to what these boys will do?

I see. You call it "ducking out" when your mental version of what is said does not actually correspond exactly to what was written.

I suppose what I posted has "no point" for you becuase I didn't write something utterly unequivocal and simple about girls' fashions and sexual harassment and assault of girls by boys like:

"It is obvious to me that all boys will lose control and become beasts when confronted with the sight of a skimpily-clad girl. The depravity of the boys is of course entirely the fault of the girls for being skimpily-clad! She should have been covered up in more modest clothing and it would not have happened then. She probably should have prayed to Jesus more too!"

I didn't write that because it would have been a load of rubbish.

A possible effect of this trend in girls' clothing IMO is that there may be an increase in pressure and sexual harassment from boys towards girls, more pre-teen/early teen sex and (much less likely) an increase in sexual assaults of girls by boys.

I can say what I think but I can't say I'm right or prove it. Or that it will happen etc.

In that sense, you are correct. I have no point if you demand proof and certainties.

Wicknight wrote:

Again you duck away from an actual point.
...Well you say the boys can't control themselves, and it is the girls who cause these responses in girls. So is it not the girls responsibility then?

No you missed my point. I thought I explained this. What the child wears is ultimately the parent's responsibility IMO so if a girl were to be harassed by a boy partly as a result of wearing that clothing she is not to blame for the situation.

Remember the what you posted earlier about youngsters and their reasons for wearing this stuff? Maybe I'm naive about children, but she's probably not wearing it because of any effect it may have on the opposite sex...

The boy is to blame for his bad behaviour (but should not get the same punishment as an adult - you even agreed with this), his parents are to blame, and the girls' parents are to blame also.

Wicknight wrote:

Parents should decide what girls wear, so what would be your justification, as a parent, for not letting your girls wear these outfits? What will happen to her if you do?

You don't think girls should dress like this. Because .... ?

I thought it might have some negative effect on people with paedophile tendencies, but what others posted on the thread suggests not. Anyway, the paeophiles can get all they want from the net now so they don't need many stimulations from real life.

I think it could lead to more sexual pressure on girls from boys/harassment of girls, more underage sex, and (least likely) rapes and assaults but I can't prove that - hence your mockery I suppose.

Even if I'm wrong about the above I don't like it for some rather irrational reasons which a sophisticate like you will laugh at.

It is a corruption of childhood to make money but because the children don't see it that way it is "okay" (but "childhood" is whatever it is you say).

It is companies pushing children towards adulthood so they can make a fast euro off them while they are still nice and malleable. The best bit is the marks themselves lap it up without question.

It is companies that make money by, basically objectifying women, putting their "brand" on girls before they even understand what the symbols mean. You don't have to be a feminist to see something awry with that.

The contradictions between people approving of dressing up children like this on the one hand (because its what they like - to actually tell them what to wear would be opressive as you know) and then hypocritically tut-tutting about teenage pregnancies, increases in the sexual activity of young teenagers, going into silly hysterics over the "paedo-threat", and wanting to see the police and lawyers dragged into places where they are not needed suggest to me that Al Qaeda and the Pope are both probably onto something when they say there is a deep sickness in Western societies.

Wicknight wrote:

What will happen to your girls (or my girls, or anyones girls) if they dress like this?

Most likely, nothing more serious than a bit of extra attention from boys which if their personality is strong enough they will be well able to cope with.
Maybe if they are unlucky, some sexual harassment.

I don't know whether girls wearing more adult/skimpy clothes has resulted in or will result in a larger amount of mild or severe sexual harassment by boys or underage sex or sexual assaults/rapes.

If it did, I don't know how big the effect would be. How many people would be affected. So I cannot not say how much the hypothetical girl would be increasing her risk of in the mild case getting harassed or in the extreme case being assaulted by one of these "raging boys" you were on about.

It would not surprise me if she ran a much, much bigger risk of getting run over by a car or maybe even hit by a lightning bolt than being assaulted regardless of what she were wearing.

If statistics showed that that these types of behaviours by boys towards girls were on the increase compared to the past [when the "trend in adult/sexual clothing for girls/young teens" (I'm avoiding the word sexualisation just for you) was not so prevalent] I guess it would be hard to correlate one with the other.

Wicknight wrote:

You said they have less self-control (how is it "less" if they are still perfectly capable of controling themselves).

I said they have less than men.
IMO a boy around puberty/young teenager would be more likely than a man to do something inappropriate such as leer, or make a comment, or touch when around a girl wearing sexy clothes. Skimpy clothes as a factor in a rape or assault - less likely.

However, as you said, all these things (unwanted looking, comments, touches) are forms of sexual harassment.

Wicknight wrote:

So your position is girls shouldn't dress sexy, not because of what might happen to them, but simple because it makes it easier on men to ... what exactly? Play football? Build tree houses? What?

LOL. Of course women should dress in sexy clothes.
I personally just prefer if they keep it outside the workplace because the look-don't look dichotomy it causes in my head is distracting.

How is that such a big deal? You make it sound like I would insist they wear a bloody burka or something rather than have a preference for a non-seethrough blouse that goes that extra button closer to the neck!
It has absolutely nothing to do with the idiotic woman tempt man --> man do evil --> woman to blame for evil of man calculus you were pinning on me earlier.

Wicknight wrote:

(BTW, I've no idea where you go thte idea that women don't dress "sexy" in work to make it easier on the men to get work done)

Oh dear! Did I say that? Er...No, I didn't exactly [as per usual] but here is what I meant.

Looking "professional" means that the people you deal with are not excessively distracted or put off by your appearance, does it not? Men with neat hair polished shoes, plain suits and ties, all that stuff?

I imagine if I was a woman I would know that say, having my nipples poking up out of a diaphanous top for the world to see, would probably be distracting to those men around me and their pretty obvious discomfort as they engage with the old look-do not look problem may be most disturbing and off-putting to me if I were trying to speak in a meeting or give a presentation or something like that! Therefore I may wear something less revealing, both for my own benefit and as a bit of courtesy and respect to those around me.

OR maybe you'll now flip things round and say it is the blasted men's fault for making her feel uncomfortable in what she is wearing and she should be able to come to work in a Wonderwoman costume and a cape if she wants and noone should bat an eyelid!

Perhaps you can give your reasons as to why women wear what they wear in offices? Is it because of that old chestnut the bible or would it be bad-ole male opression or the evils of tradition or something?

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

Parents are responsible for dressing their children anyway they like, but dressing them too "sexy" is wrong ... what?

How is that a contradiction? What would you like? That I say I desire to be Fly of the Agaric, ruler of all, the Great Fuhrer of Ireland who will decree that parents must not dress their girls in hideous skimpy tat peddled by greedy companies!:rolleyes:

Surely in your anything-goes world where noone has the right to boss even their own children on the issue what to wear I can keep my opinion and be able to express it!

Wicknight wrote:

Boys have less self control around sexy dress girls than men which can lead to unwanted sexual contact and the full weight of the law should not be brought against them (because they have less self-control presumably??) But boys perfectly able to control themsleves, and should take full responsibility for any unwanted advances they make ... what?

They don't have full resposibilty, they have less responsibility than men because of their age. They have self-control, but less than men.

It is very hard to get into specifics the way you want because all cases and situations will be different depending on ages, what exactly happened, was it wanted or resisted etc.

What could happen to a man who gropes a woman at work who didn't want that and she becomes extremely upset and angry?
I suppose he would be dismissed from his job. Couldn't she have some case for sexual harassment taken against him? Maybe even assault charges??

What should happen to a boy who touches a girl in an unwanted way in school?
Should he just be punished by the school and his parents?
Should the law get involved as it did in the man's case?

From what I read in the US/UK media it seems that this kind of stuff involving young teens and preteens or even children will end up with the police and the law involved much more often than in the past.

I do not think this is fair to the boys involved, who like the girls are too young to be fully aware of and in control of their sexuality.

But maybe you see it as progress!
Silly me, of course you do!

Wicknight wrote:

This all goes back to my earlier post about how people feel this is wrong but they actually have no idea why, logically, this is wrong.

Please tell us why it is wrong, O Wicknight! Or better yet, if it is a good thing! A sign of the sassy independence and "coolness" of modern kiddies perhaps?

Wicknight wrote:

And you still have answered what actually happens to my 15 ... 11... 5 year old daughter who wears a playboy t-shirt and "Juicy" tracksuit ...

Eh, probably nothing as I said earlier in this crazily long post.
Maybe boys will be more interested in her and a bit of Brave New World style erotic-play is all good for any self-respecting progressive child, right? And if it goes too far for one of the participants, well we have equally progressive harassment legislation and lawyers and courts for that stuff!

That was a joke by the way. Don't take it too seriously What an anti-climax.

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

A possible effect of this trend in girls' clothing IMO is that there may be an increase in pressure and sexual harassment from boys towards girls, more pre-teen/early teen sex and (much less likely) an increase in sexual assaults of girls by boys.

I can say what I think but I can't say I'm right or prove it. Or that it will happen etc.

You said it better than I ever could ...