Let girls be girls campaign is puritanical?

[clemette]

here

mp you're saying it all for me love!

i also happen to think that the fact that most boys clothes are WAR oriented is WORSE!!! if you stop and think about it for a second.

That article is flat-out ridiculous, and she's totally missed the point.

A 7 year old does not need a padded anything, nor does she need to "explore the world of adult sexuality." There is a massive difference between teaching your daughter to own her sexuality when she's an adult and putting a miniskirt and a "li'l hottie" crop top on your preschooler!

How did this woman get published?

she says she would have killed for a padde bra while in Primary school!? I didn;t even know what a bra was when I was in Primary school!

I agree with you too sophable on all fronts

Boys and WAR is just as BONKERS isn't it?

I really don't care about girl's clothing TBH, but I do hate the playboy-marketed-to-children thing - it's quite extraordinary that anyone thinks that is acceptable

Maybe I'm being spectacularly obtuse but I have no idea what she's on about.

Seven year olds will only stuff their bras with toilet paper if denied padded bras?? On what planet?

It's weird that Mumsnetters always claim to be 1. prolific early readers and 2. spent their childhood hanging on branches of trees until they were 12 and then realised that boys/girls were quite fanciable

Because for a start, I read the works of Judy Blume by the age of about 9 (excluding Forever) and that is all about masturbating and snogging

I read all the Judy Blumes quite early and fancied boys from about 6. (I was also up trees a lot)

But sorry MP but if you were sexually active at 8 then that is just plain wrong in my opinion. It's one thing to be aware of sexual feelings at that age but hands down eachothers pants? At 8?

It was just cheery exploratory fun behind the bus shelter

what do you mean by sexually active though! it isn't a moment in time that starts when you're period arrives or when you have penetrative sex!

hands down pants, i'll show you mine etc can start v early without anything being wrong...

There is a world of difference between you show me yours I'll show you mine and 11 year old girls giving BJ's.

I also read Judy Blume early and kissed boys at 5 or 6, but nothing that wasn't innocent.

"Children do learn what feels nice but its not the same as being interested in sex."

could you clarify, because this is not straightforward but fairly complex imo. in fact i'm not sure i agree at all with that sentence.

i think as parents we'd love to compartmentalise 'what feels good' and 'sex' whereas I'm not sure you can!

I actually think that compartmentalising "What feels good" and "sex" as being different things results in a nasty penetro-centric view of sex that is harmful in it's own right

And talk of "becoming sexualised beings" makes no sense - we are BORN sexualised beings

(lol @ sticklbacks / brooks / coppices etc)

I find it really tiresome to be told that, because I object to this kind of objectification of girls and women, I am "anti-sex" or ignorant about children's sexual development.

yes and as you all know (or should) one day i'm going to write a book about the whole heinous villany that is penetro-centric sexuality.

or pointless jabbing for preference as a moniker.

clearly you're not molesworth, but do you agree that it's a sticky wicket in terms of the LGBG campaign. i'm being utterly shite and not saying we shouldn't do it, but that in a way it's horse cart bolted whatever that phrase is territory.

still think that playboy merch for 6 year olds is something to wave placards about though.

lol @ pointless jabbing

Justa: are your children busy catching sticklebacks?