Saw A teenage Girl Half Naked

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

No. I said it was odd how much you are thinking about it. I stand by that. No accusation, not winding you up, just stating that it's strange to let a cursory glance of a child in a skimpy outfit, stick with you to an extent of creating a thread to discuss it.

I'd wager that most people would not give it a second thought.

I don't think so , I often hear comments about the way some people dress and even others in this thread said it wasn't so good so are they perverts ?

Yes you're making acquisitions by trying to portray me as a pervert , I'm not thinking about it at all apart from having to reply to this thread to defend myself nothing more than that. In fact I was not thinking about it at all today until I got an email of new posts to this thread.

So I'm not concerned about anyone half dressed only concerned about being portrayed as a pervert and being trolled.

The Rape of Lucretia

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Whatever the rights and wrongs of young girls going out in public almost in the nip, I think the real concern here is the OP having a predisposition to evaluating how undressed young girls are, and posting about it on the web.

Congrats, you got a like from the dunne.

Again I never called you a pervert. And sure, I would hate for my daughter to wear revealing outfits at a young age. (I'd also hate to think that if she did, some random man who happened to see her would want to talk about it on the internet)

You were the one who started a thread about it, in a discussion forum, yet you say that you don't think about it.

You label the thread "saw a teenage girl half naked" yet say it wasn't deliberately provocative title.

wexie

Deleted User wrote: »

You label the thread "saw a teenage girl half naked" yet say it wasn't deliberately provocative title.

Just sounds so much better than 'saw a teenage girl wearing seethrough leggings'

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Again I never called you a pervert. And sure, I would hate for my daughter to wear revealing outfits at a young age. (I'd also hate to think that if she did, some random man who happened to see her would want to talk about it on the internet)

You were the one who started a thread about it, in a discussion forum, yet you say that you don't think about it.

You label the thread "saw a teenage girl half naked" yet say it wasn't deliberately provocative title.

It was the title that came to mind at the time but if I could change it to something else I would it was not deliberate.

Deleted User wrote: »

(I'd also hate to think that if she did, some random man who happened to see her would want to talk about it on the internet)

I'm not talking about it for reasons you might think, I am a father of 2 boys, I don't have girls but as a patent I would not want this either which is one reason I started the thread is to find out is this the norm and should it be accepted or should we not talk about it at all just because they're young girls and we're men ? would it be more acceptable if I were Female and started the topic ? this is a forum for things to get discussed I felt it was worth discussing , boy was I wrong ! lesson learned for sure.

Look I'm sure you're a terrific Dad and all that but give me a break.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

Driving down the road saw a Girl in a group of Girls, probably 14-16 and she was wearing a pair of tights that a girl would normally wear with a skirt or whatever but I could clearly see her two cheeks and she was wearing a thong.

My other half said I obviously had a good luck but no I was horrified, I couldn't help seeing what I saw FFS, what parent would allow their teenage Daughter out like that ? I don't want to see kids out on the street like that, Jesus !

Am I being old fashioned or what ?

Pics or it didn't happen.

BBFAN

This whole thread is quite disturbing.

BBFAN

BBFAN wrote: »

This whole thread is quite disturbing.

Thanks.

hatrickpatrick

As far as I'm concerned this is a great thing. The de-tabooing and de-awing of sexuality continues unabated.

Furthermore:

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah stop taking the mick , seriously

Hector Savage

BBFAN wrote: »

This whole thread is quite disturbing.

It's disturbing because people are placing false intentions on the OP ...

Grayson

BBFAN wrote: »

This whole thread is quite disturbing masturbating.

Fixed it for you.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

It’s not up to us to accept how another person dresses.
I wouldn’t look twice at a toddler running around nappy free, because they’re a child. I wouldn’t judge parents who dress their small daughter in a dress and flashing the childs knickers when they’re holding her in their arms, because she’s a child. Some 14 year old has questionable fashion sense, and reveals too much of herself? As adults it’s up to us not to sexualise that. It is not our place to decide what another child wears is acceptable or not. It doesn’t matter what she wears, she’s not harming anyone.

Gimme A Pound

Deleted User wrote: »

A phase ? seriously ? God damn, maybe I'm too old but I actually found it repulsive ? I don't want to see this sh1t on the streets.

Yeah a teenage phase of doing stuff to be cool.

It's pretty harmless but I agree that it looks awful and it's unnecessary to feel obliged to look so sexualised at such a young age - irrespective of people saying we are in no position to judge (of course we are - everyone judges, including them) and that it's "breaking down sexual taboos" (whatever). All it is is expressing an opinion. I believe you when you say she looked only 14 or 15. Of course you can tell. If anything, sexy clothes are to make people look older than they are. The person at pains to insist she may not be is just backtracking on their comment about "a nice tight looking young one" (Jesus Christ).

I don't think anyone is saying girls that young should be wearing a handmaid's tale get-up, just not having their arse on display.

Hector Savage

Kora Tasty Rave wrote: »

It’s not up to us to accept how another person dresses.
I wouldn’t look twice at a toddler running around nappy free, because they’re a child. I wouldn’t judge parents who dress their small daughter in a dress and flashing the childs knickers when they’re holding her in their arms, because she’s a child. Some 14 year old has questionable fashion sense, and reveals too much of herself? As adults it’s up to us not to sexualise that. It is not our place to decide what another child wears is acceptable or not. It doesn’t matter what she wears, she’s not harming anyone.

Jesus how naive.
I remember I was in Liverpool once and saw a family out with their daughter - she must have been no more than 9, and she was in a miniskirt makeup, looked like a little tramp - everyone could see this, we were amazed parents would allow her out like that.

But according to your logic I shouldn't have noticed it ? - hmmm interesting.

There is a difference between noticing inappropriate dress to actually "sexualising" it ...

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I think it’s weird to look at a 9 year old and call her a little tramp, to be honest.

sbsquarepants

In fairness he said she looked one, not that she was. I know where he's coming from - I see those American beauty pageants and I think they look like little tramps. Seriously makes me question their parents intentions.
Slightly off topic but those shows turn my stomach, how anyone can involve their children in something like that is beyond me.

The Rape of Lucretia

Kora Tasty Rave wrote: »

It’s not up to us to accept how another person dresses.

It is. And we even legislate for it.

Hector Savage

sbsquarepants wrote: »

In fairness he said she looked one, not that she was. I know where he's coming from - I see those American beauty pageants and I think they look like little tramps. Seriously makes me question their parents intentions.
Slightly off topic but those shows turn my stomach, how anyone can involve their children in something like that is beyond me.

Yep they are creepy as f*ck.

bnt

If this was Westeros (the world of Game of Thrones), she'd be old enough to either get married and start breeding, or go to work in a whorehouse. This idea that people aren't "adults" until 18 is a very modern thing, since we finally figured out that there's more to life than getting hatched, matched and dispatched.

sbsquarepants

bnt wrote: »

If this was Westeros (the world of Game of Thrones), she'd be old enough to either get married and start breeding, or go to work in a whorehouse. This idea that people aren't "adults" until 18 is a very modern thing, since we finally figured out that there's more to life than getting hatched, matched and dispatched.

Never mind Westeros - Labre Park she'd be married with 2 kids by now (4 if the social were asking):D

Hector Savage

bnt wrote: »

If this was Westeros (the world of Game of Thrones), she'd be old enough to either get married and start breeding, or go to work in a whorehouse. This idea that people aren't "adults" until 18 is a very modern thing, since we finally figured out that there's more to life than getting hatched, matched and dispatched.

in fact you could argue that we aren't really fully "adults" until 22/23 as the brain is still developing until then.

That's why I always find it creepy that a guy in his 30's can be dating a girl in her early twenties/late teens - even though it's perfectly acceptable in society.

bnt

Hector Savage wrote: »

in fact you could argue that we aren't really fully "adults" until 22/23 as the brain is still developing until then.

That's why I always find it creepy that a guy in his 30's can be dating a girl in her early twenties/late teens - even though it's perfectly acceptable in society.

This doesn't contradict what I was saying, it's just that a woman's mental maturity simply wasn't a consideration for most of history. I'd go so far as to say that "dating" someone that young is a sign that you still have that medieval mindset and simply don't care about her brain. :rolleyes:

Wibbs

bnt wrote: »

If this was Westeros (the world of Game of Thrones), she'd be old enough to either get married and start breeding, or go to work in a whorehouse. This idea that people aren't "adults" until 18 is a very modern thing, since we finally figured out that there's more to life than getting hatched, matched and dispatched.

Pretty much. It comes as a shock to our sensibilities. In ancient Greece and Rome women were married off at around 15(sometimes younger) to men in their mid to late 20's and often much older, if a guy had a few quid and had divorced or buried previous wives. Spartan women being the exception as they got hitched around 20 and usually to men around a similar age(they had far more gender equality going on compared to the rest of the classical world which is one reason for this). Until the modern era women were often married off around 16-18, men a little older. At the top of the social tree, royalty were marrying off boys and girls as young as 12. Mad. To such societies the modern western world's trend of more woman having their first kids in their 30's would be considered a truly alien concept.

As well as social changes medical advances made a huge difference. The risk of dying in pregnancy and childbirth was a very real one. In many societies women, more like girls, with anything to leave behind after them wrote their wills on learning they were pregnant for the first time. Societies figured that younger women would be more likely to survive and give birth to healthy kids. Not realising that younger women/girls are more likely to have complications and fatal ones with it as they're not grown up enough. That risk drops right off after 20.

sbsquarepants

Ah here - if matching mental maturities was a requirement, I'd be obliged to only date teenagers:)

super_furry

bnt wrote: »

If this was Westeros (the world of Game of Thrones), she'd be old enough to either get married and start breeding, or go to work in a whorehouse. This idea that people aren't "adults" until 18 is a very modern thing, since we finally figured out that there's more to life than getting hatched, matched and dispatched.

Aaaaaannd you're on a watchlist.

I get what you're saying but also back then people were dying of old age at 45.

BeerWolf

Women in bikinis are more than half naked... :pac:

Wibbs

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Ah here - if matching mental maturities was a requirement, I'd be obliged to only date teenagers:)

Having read your stuff down the years SB, teenagers might be a tad advanced for you. :P

TBH I'm not so sure about castigating a 30 year old going out with a 20 year old(going either way gender wise). It really would depend on the people involved.

super_furry wrote: »

Aaaaaannd you're on a watchlist.

I get what you're saying but also back then people were dying of old age at 45.

Not really, though commonly believed. Longevity stats are dragged down by the truly appalling levels of childhood mortality in the past. If you reached adulthood the chances of you seeing 60, even 70 weren't that much lower than today. If you reached adulthood. It would help if you were male too. Unlike today men tended to live longer than women because of deaths in childbirth. To take a few famous mutant ninja turtles Renaissance types. Michelangelo was 88 when he pegged it. Donatello 80, Leonardo(the clean living vegetarian) made it to his late 60's, Raphael kicked the bucket young alright, in his late 30's(and this was considered tragically young at the time). Other Renaissance artists like Titian made it to nearly 90, Tintoretto late 70's. All were producing art until the end. Impressive in Michelangelo's case as artistically bating the fook outa marble with hammers is not exactly relaxing work.

suicide_circus

paedophiles are interested in pre pubescent children.

Having an unconscious instinctual automatic attraction to someone who is post pubescent is...well...evolutionarily valid, but not acceptable socially dependant on your own age.

TheBoyConor

suicide_circus wrote: »

paedophiles are interested in pre pubescent children.

Having an unconscious instinctual automatic attraction to someone who is post pubescent is...well...evolutionarily valid, but not acceptable socially dependant on your own age.

Tbh, as far as the law is concerened anyone with an interest in someone less than the age of consent is a pedo.

Grayson

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Tbh, as far as the law is concerened anyone with an interest in someone less than the age of consent is a pedo.

Does the law cover thought? Does it even define paedophillia or does it state what actions are illegal. I'd assume that the DSM would define paedophillia and the law would state what actions are prohibited.