sexualisation of children vs slut shaming

Or maybe you mean a woman who looks like she has lots of sexual partners but in fact may not?

Because obviously you can't tell by looking at a woman how many men she's fucked. Or even if she likes men, for that matter!

Oh this "And of course women have the right to have lots of sexual partners, if that is what they want." I'm assuming when you say "its your right to be a slut" you mean women with lots of sexual partners.

Who is aside?

And of course women have the right to have lots of sexual partners, if that is what they want.

What does "slut up" mean? Is that a term for getting dressed up for a Friday night out on the town? Never heard it before.

But we all know this right?

Most of us (not all) have had experiences of men behaving badly in all sorts of ways to us when we were in a range of clothing.

This thread is about children's clothing. If a man is attracted to a children, or 11 yo girls, then that is what he is attracted to. And if he is a man who can't keep his thoughts to himself, he will act on this with children that he has access to and what they are wearing will make fuck all difference.

Think about the men in the shops who were raping and trafficking scores of girls. Do people seriously believe that their behaviour was in any way influenced by what those children were wearing?

I am pretty sure that most 10 year olds have encountered porn, are using sexual language, some are even asking for naked pictures from the opposite sex
I'm not 'pretty sure' about that - I think you are wrong!

Aside, I caution you to stop beating your head against a brick wall with this lot. They're the 'Slut up, its your right to be a slut' brigade.

JAPAB What people are suggesting is that, by wearing clothes which reveal more of your body;

a)invites sexual attention
b) says something about your character

Do you agree with either a or b?

I agree laurief

"But again, same thing, that's not true is it. If you pass a 90 yo woman in a bikini and a 20 year old in a dress you are more likely to feel appreciative of the 20yo (all things being equal).

Well you mention the key phrase yourself, with all else equal I would be more likely to have thoughts over a bikini wearer than a nun. Of course there can be other factors that might change this."

yes with all else equal ie the 90yo doesn't have the looks and body of a 20yo and the 20yo doesn't have the looks and body of a 90yo! Or some other very unusual set of circumstances. In general, a man will feel more appreciative of a 20yo in a dress than a 90yo in a bikini!

It is not the CLOTHES it is the person IN THEM. Why do you think so many men have a thing for girls in school uniform? It's not because school uniform is designed to be sexually appealing, it is because it is worn by female children including an age group that many men are attracted to ie girls aged about 11 to 16.

Fact is, boys and girls (who are under the age of consent or over the age but still far too young to be interested in you) can look attractive to many people in a loose t shirt and baggy jeans or in short shorts and tight t-shirt. You can notice it without being a perve. You can even let your thought wander along sexual lines if that in itself is enough to do it for you. It's private, it's personal, it's your thing because no one else needs to know. You don't have to say "yeah I'd smash that" to your friend, or "if only they weren't jailbait" or "I feel uncomfortable that she/he is dressing like that as he/she is too young" and certainly you don't need to let the random object of your lust, or anyone else around you, even have the vaguest clue that's what's flicked through your mind.

I find this idea of "controlling your thoughts" or - really - trying to control other people's thoughts, deeply depressing because it exacerbates the problem. Don't be abusive and don't blame the person on the receiving end of the abuse because they wore something that you personally find sexually alluring.

Because if you put the dress on a MAN you won't be drooling over him will you, no matter how low cut or short it is.

What makes the difference is the person in the dress and your friend was discomfited because he found a 14yo girl's legs sexy and rather than re-evaluating what 14yo might look like he blamed her for choosing a certain type of skirt and "making" him look at her and make what he subsequently realised were inappropriate comments!

There are so many things wrong with that.

And I would say it wasn't her clothes he was "fooled" by, but her body. If he had seen an elderly woman, or a 7yo, in the same clothes, would he have been similarly "fooled"? No of course not. It's the bodies, not the clothes that are the point here.

I think it was a combination of both. Clothes can of course assist in revealing or concealing the body. If a girl is dressing with a 'look' that most people would associate with older, more grown-up women, plus the clothes do reveal enough of the body, well it is not just all about the body.

"Speaking as a man IME I am far more likely to have aappreciative thoughts if I pass a woman in a bikini than I am if I was passing a nun. If someone does have a problem with men having such thoughts about her then dress can work in this regard."

But again, same thing, that's not true is it. If you pass a 90 yo woman in a bikini and a 20 year old in a dress you are more likely to feel appreciative of the 20yo (all things being equal).

Well you mention the key phrase yourself, with all else equal I would be more likely to have thoughts over a bikini wearer than a nun. Of course there can be other factors that might change this.

But I really do not know why some people are disputing that dress can make a difference. Even if it doesn't for person A it can do for person B.

We can disagree on what ought to be done about this, who is responsible for what, but disputing that there are people for whom it can affect their thoughts?

I'd think that to lass. Like the school prom photos that are doing the round at the moment.

And by "exactly the same" I meant grown - up , charming / handsome /pretty.

Boy in smart tuxedo/shoes - described as grown up, handsome, charming, smart.
Girl in equivalent evening dress/high heels - inappropriate, over-sexualised

Personally I would think exactly the same for both. Possibly because I do think a lot about clothes and how much fun they are.

drinks - you know that's not a philosophical point right? Women really are raped no matter how much they're wearing. Women are raped in full, head to toe robes, in jeans and t-shirt - it really, really doesn't matter what a woman is wearing - there are sites out there where rape survivors have written what they were wearing at the time - have a google and a read

I've only dipped in and out of this thread over the last few days, but it's caused a real lightbulb for me.

Consider (and these were my own, un-considered thoughts before this thread): Boy in smart tuxedo/shoes - described as grown up, handsome, charming, smart.
Girl in equivalent evening dress/high heels - inappropriate, over-sexualised

Why? It can only be because women are still viewed by everyone (including me, who I would have thought was fairly enlightened) as a sex class, and girls who dress like women are distasteful because they shouldn't be in any way sexual. It's not that what they're wearing is sexually charged though, it's that women as a class are sexually charged and they look like women.

You could try to make a case about it being flesh on display - but then why are adult women supposed to have so much flesh on display, it must be a sex thing.

I checked this in my head by considering latex short-shorts. Definitely a sexual object. Definitely feel they are inappropriate for both sexes of children.

Not that any of this gives anyone any excuses for their behaviour. Women are raped no matter what they are wearing, or how much it covers.

I think the onus is on both. If women don't want men to think sexually about them, they can minimize the risk (though not completely prevent) by covering up. As a woman I have that power

Really? Have you read this? Clothes are never an invitation to rape.

Yes girls and boys clothes are cut differently - with girls clothes being skimpier, tighter - in all shops that I've been in.

Girls shoes show this as well. Footwear for girls is less practical and more decorative than boys footwear. And more revealing, even!

The messages here about the purposes of our male and female children is obvious. And for most people it all works fine until the girl starts to grow into a woman and all of a sudden the clothes which were fine, pretty and cute, are suddenly "inappropriate".

Just for interest I decided to do some searches on the Boden website. I like Boden clothes for kids and think that they generally make age appropriate clothes, I picked on them for that reason. We all know companies that would be easy to dismiss because they make very sexual clothes for girls.

But the results were still interesting. Compare boys shorts with girls shorts and boys vest with girls vest. In the majority of cases the girls clothes are skimpier than the boys clothes.

If it's true that men do have uncontrollable lust then I think it would be better for men to have a curfew as they're clearly dangerous.

Poor old men, out there in the world being affected by clothes. Terrible women, wearing those clothes that afflict the poor old men! We must change our clothes for fear men will have uncontrollable lust!

Mama I wonder if you've had some very bad experiences in your life. I hope not, but if you have you know you'd find support here if you wanted to talk about it.

That is a more concise way of saying it, I Nicked!

But I find it very interesting that people think clothes have no effect on men when it's plainly not true.

I think clothes are used an excuse of men's crappy behaviour, not the cause of it. It takes responsibility of the mans perving away from the man, and plants it on the woman/girl/child.

Well if he wants to act on his thoughts, then he needs to ensure that the person he wants to act on them with is not 14, yes.

And I would say it wasn't her clothes he was "fooled" by, but her body. If he had seen an elderly woman, or a 7yo, in the same clothes, would he have been similarly "fooled"? No of course not. It's the bodies, not the clothes that are the point here.

I said: "All of your ideas around protecting yourself are restrictive and don't work anyway."

Speaking as a man IME I am far more likely to have aappreciative thoughts if I pass a woman in a bikini than I am if I was passing a nun. If someone does have a problem with men having such thoughts about her then dress can work in this regard."

But again, same thing, that's not true is it. If you pass a 90 yo woman in a bikini and a 20 year old in a dress you are more likely to feel appreciative of the 20yo (all things being equal).

What is actually being said here, I think, is this:

• Females who are in their reproductive years and have the bodies associated with that, are (generally) sexually attractive to men
• Society says that men can and should express that sexual attraction, in a variety of ways, irrespective of whether females like that or not (leering instead of looking, being obvious, saying things, and so on and so forth)
• It is not legal to have sex with under 16s
• Men cannot help point 1. nor should they have any constraints applied to their behaviour in point 2.
• Therefore the only thing left is for girls to wear clothes that denote they are not legal, as soon as their bodies start developing, to avoid men being confused

This throws up a host of questions, which I can't be bothered to write out right now and have mainly been raised on the thread anyway.

X-post Mide.