sexualisation of children vs slut shaming

This is really interesting, this topic.

Because I also flinch occasionally when I see what teen (girls, always girls) are wearing, and I have to wonder to myself why it is.

Having given it some thought, for me, I think it goes:

Some adult women are very sexually attractive to men. Some adult women like to be sexually attractive to men in a general way, for whatever reasons they have. (Many women don't , they want to be found sexually attractive by people they also find attractive and not the rest of them thanks actually you can stop following me now). Anyway, the women who are very sexually attractive to men have certain attributes that probably haven't changed over the millenia - things around symmetry of face and curviness of hip and slenderness of waist and so forth. And thus fashions over the years will look to accentuate these points on women generally, whether they are actually in the realm of very sexually attractive or not, and depending on the prevailing mores of society (ankles / breasts / hair covered / uncovered and so forth).

Of course many women and girls who are very sexually attractive don't like the attention and so try to hide their body and looks - which is very difficult and life for them can be very difficult indeed.

So then we are left with the fashion for women who are adults and if they want to of dressing in a certain way which is understood by society to mean "I am trying to look sexually attractive" and this of course changes over the years as to what it consists of.

But girls will always emulate women - that's just normal and standard - and this is where the problem comes as (as a poster previous has pointed out) the girls are dressing this way because it is the fashion. They are not (almost always not) dressing that way because they even want to look attractive to boys their own age, and you will be hard pressed to find any who dress that way because they want to look sexually appealing to a random passing 60yo lech.

So, really, the problem is getting the intent of some adult women and assuming that intent is there in much younger teens and even children.

Then, also, well it's not the clothes, is it. If you take "sexy woman" clothes and makeup and put them on a man, or a boy, people don't make comments about them being promiscuous. If you put them on a 4 year old, people think that's a bit weird, but they don't think the 4yo is "slutty". It's only when you put the clothes on a female aged about 8 up that people start making all these unpleasant comments. And, as we all know, even if girls and women don't wear these clothes, they still get the kind of treatment from men that presumably is being invited by "the clothes". it's not though is it, it's the young female person in the clothes and it doesn't matter what they wear it'll still be that way.

So in short, saying that girls in X clothing are is very basic fundamental victim blaming. Before anything has even happened they are saying it is the girls fault for choosing to wear certain clothes. Which is patently ridiculous.

And of course anyone who thinks that adult men are liable to assault female children just because they've got a certain type of shoe on is deluded. Paedophiles don't select victims based on their shoes.

It's just all pre-empting the usual victim blaming shite.

captain, those children are already part of the struggle if their clothing choices are being restricted.

cailin, I'm totally with you on the breast thing. IMO, the world would be a much better place if all body parts were desexualised (except the parts actually used for sex). Women simply should be able to have bare breasts in public if they wish. And it can be done. Women's ankles and knees can be seen in public these days - something which was pretty much unheard of in this country 100 years ago.

At one point it was seen to be sexual for women to show their ankles. Do you think that should not have been desexualised?

Because if I go to work it is not appropriate to dress provocatively. Right or wrong I don't know. I do know if I wear a low cut top and a short skirt and big heels I will get more male attention than if I go out wearing my current get up of trackies. I think a lot of people male and female equate wearing provocative clothes, make-up etc with being on the pull. No problem with that, just like a peacock struts around showing off his arse to impress the ladies, I don't think he does it because he just feels like it. I don't think you can take something like heels that 20 years ago would only be found in sex shops; and which are now being sold in high street shops and say actually their origin was not sexual and we shouldn't sexualise it. Fishnets too, they are not functional. They may make a woman feel empowered but I'm sure part of that is sexual confidence knowing you are turning someone on, or turning heads in a tut-tut way. Saying these things are not sexual means you are trying to desexualise something that has long been seen as sexual, and imo a bit of a uphill struggle children don't need to be part of.

Why do you think that is pax?

I work in a very male environment. We get a lot of female reps visiting who are very aware that their breasts are sexually attractive to men. They generally have a lot of breast on display and are extremely friendly and smiley with the male bosses / buyers and are quite dismissive of the few female staff.

In many countries women have to cover their hair and even their faces. Do we just accept that men find those sexually appealing and so they must be covered?

I'm not saying men don't think breasts are sexually appealing captain. But I don't find them appealing, I think they're nice but nothing special. So why do men's preferences dictate women's clothing choices? And what if women decide men's forearms are sexually appealing (I know many women do, including me). So do we then get to say they have to be covered?

I think and feel free to shoot me down, that there is another layer. I have a ds who is 11 one of the mums with a Dd, was objecting to crop tops, now if you can't wear a crop top aged 11- what 22 max showing off your lovely tight abs (and this girl is very slim and pretty) either in hot weather or as sports wear then when the hell can you ? The majority of 11 year old girls will be in puberty (average age of onset is 10.5), if they need bras should they be made to wear clothes cut for children? Surely better they dress for their developmental stage.

I think this mother feels threatened by her daughter's budding sexuality, because that's what it is. Of course good taste is important too and people of both sees and all ages need to be appropriately attired for the activity they are undertaking.

Well seeing as men often talk to my tits and not my face I'm guessing tits are pretty sexually appealing to most heterosexual males. Happy for a heterosexual man to say they don't find a nice cleavage sexually arousing and prove me wrong.

Who gets to decide what's considered sexual JAPAB?

cailindana
I think male chests are in a similar category as female legs. No doubt can be very aesthetically pleasing to look at for those orientated the right way to appreciate them, but breasts are in a different category again.

Whether or not people should be free to expose whatever bits they have that are considered "sexual", maybe not in general public situations, I think.

Ok, so what do you think?

"JAPAB - do you reckon that it's just a natural thing then, no need for women to question it at all?"

Anyone can question whatever they want. People are free to believe that male chests are, for the general heterosexual woman, just as potentially erotic/titillating/sexually exciting/whatever terms you prefer, as the other way around. Or a person can believe that breasts indeed just are further along the sexual spectrum than male chests are, but still nonetheless think that a woman should be free to uncover.

Yes but many girls above the age of 6 or 7 won't shop in the boys department which means they're stuck with girls clothes that are tight and short. The point of the campaign is to just have clothes that are all practical and suitable for children.

JAPAB - do you reckon that it's just a natural thing then, no need for women to question it at all?

"JAPAB - why are women's nipples sexual whereas men's nipples aren't?"

More that just about the nipple, but you'll have to ask mother nature that one.

Girl's and boy's stuff looks pretty similarly priced though?

JAPAB - why are women's nipples sexual whereas men's nipples aren't?

You're not really that free Famous, if those clothes aren't available cheaply.

"Breasts are sexually pleasing to men. Therefore, women have to cover them up. Hmm, who seems to be dictating the agenda here?"

Men have to cover certain parts as well, due to notions of modesty. Both men and women have to cover up any "sexual" parts.

These campaigns annoy me as it basically a load of people who think they know better telling everyone else what they should do. You are already free to buy whatever clothing you like for your children without starting a campaign about it.

There is a campaign called 'let clothes be clothes' which follows on from the 'let toys be toys' campaign which targeted retailers for marketing toys as either girls or boys toys. Not sure what their success of the new campaign is.

Us as a society Hedgehog.

I will think I've failed as a parent if my daughter wants to wear clothes that emphasise her sexual availability to men to this extent. I just don't want her to feel that she needs to do that. I also realise that she probably will at some point.

Haven't there been MN campaigns against shops selling lacy underwear etc for kids? I too wondered why that was an issue if children aren't actually sexual.

'if we're embarrassed to have our daughters imitate us then why are we giving them such a bad example in the first place?'

Do you mean we as in society or us on this thread?