Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

2»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,022 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,022 ✭✭✭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!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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" ....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,022 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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? :confused:

    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? :confused:

    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 ...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,022 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,022 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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 ...


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement