Let girls be girls campaign is puritanical?

[clemette]

here

The problem is that we now define female sexuality as pole-dancing and tits-out

You see it from every advert, every shop window, every teenager walking down the street

Of course girls want to copy

morningpaper...do you think that was a good thing?

I also feel that if the society is obsessed with looks and sexuality a whole side of our humanity is ignored, to our diminishment.

I think that the objectification of women is horrendous

But that's the problem, there - not whether little girls want to copy women

MP - although that is how women are often portrayed in the media, is that justification for encouraging young girls to define themselves in this way? Isn't it better to encourage our daughters to aspire to more than "tits and bums" for male approval?

Lenin, behave! I don't see anyone 'demonising' little girls here.

MP, we have to start somewhere. Supporting the LGBG campaign does not imply a lack of awareness of the bigger issue of objectification and gender inequality.

people don't talk about boys exploring their sexuality because we all assume that they are sexual beings from babyhood (little boys playing with themselves is sweet and funny and oooh typical men etc.)

Whereas girls with their hands down their pants all day is more frowned upon and seen as 'odd' - it is not expected in the same way

ok, there will be some young children who have some inckling about sexuality, but these are often vague & undefined ideas. on the whole, where young girls look v 'adult' e.g. make-up, heels, etc, they are either copying an image/person they've seen OR some-one has bought them those things.

now, if dd saw something like that, i would discuss it with her, but tbh, she would be more concerned about how comfortable the clothes are, and if they are pink enough (sigh). I think larger numbers of kids grow up in their own little world, unaware of more adult issues, or only through a vague hazey impression.

so, yes, i think young children should be able to dress in clothes suited to running & playing, rather than aware of how they look to others. BUT i am equally concerned about how boys clothing also trades on gender stereotypes, and whether we should in fact campaign for kids to be kids.

think you're all in furious agreement, but do think that that laurie penny article contains some food for thought in that she articulates (somewhat clumsily) the fact that it's playboy (infantalising women) that is the root problem which then has it's echo in marketing playboy stuff to little girls (which i just think is YEUCHHHH).

there does seem to be some mistaken (imho) illusion on this thread and by mothers in general (maybe) that little girls aren't sexual...of bloody course they are: they are masturbating or learning to, and at the very least 'getting funny feelings in their tums' when they watch bunnies doing it or in my case the colby's when there was a big snog.

that isn't wrong. human beings are sexual beings. genital stimulation feels good from dot.

however, that is a far cry from pneumatic pumped up stuck on jelly mould silicone implant dressed in school uniform and bunches playboy ick that then gets copied by little girls.

i know i'm like a stuck record, but i do think that the playboy pencil case is far far more heinous than any padded bra. frigging playboy merch marketed at 6 year olds wtf. always hated playboy anyway with it's pretence at 'being about the articles' WHATEVER! and hugh heffner makes me barf.

agree but shocked at Laurie Penny