Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

sexualisation of children vs slut shaming

582 replies

bikeandrun · 17/07/2015 09:34

My DD is y6, having a great time with a fancy dress parades and final party. Being having lots of discussions with other mums and my mum about what the girls have been wearing. Finding my responses to this difficult
" cant believe mums let their daughters out of the house dressed like that" response to crop tops, mini skirts, lots of slap high heels etc

"girls don't understand the effect they have on men when they dress like that" this was aimed at a girl in dds year who has obviously gone through puberty and has a woman's body
Are just a few quotes I have heard
As a young single woman i used to enjoy dressing in an extreme and sexual way and felt empowered and confident.BUT

These girls are not sexual beings yet but is it slut shaming or just protective parenting to not want 11 year olds to dress like this.

I persuaded dd to wear converse rather than high heels mainly cos I know she wanted to jump around like a manic but I also really didn't like how she looked in those heels.
Help me find a feminist way through these feeling as I support my daughter as she grows into a woman

OP posts:
LassUnparalleled · 19/07/2015 22:43

Oh I've heard it. Fairly recently and not with reference to a historical character. Not that it's particularly pertinent to this thread.

I will continue to find" slut" offensive.

To be honest, even if it were applied to a man (I'll let you know when I hear it ) why is it even necessary to use a pejorative term for anyone who indulges in casual sex? That automaically makes them a bad person?

LassUnparalleled · 19/07/2015 22:44

And sorry I'm not buying for one minute that "slut" is used in a non- insulting way.

laurierf · 19/07/2015 22:46

And sorry I'm not buying for one minute that "slut" is used in a non- insulting way

I don't need you to buy into it. Don't be sorry.

marmaladeatkinz · 19/07/2015 22:54

'Slut' is always an insult

laurierf · 19/07/2015 22:55

marmalade… not it's not. It was in the way it was used in this thread though.

LassUnparalleled · 19/07/2015 23:08

There's an interesting stooshie going on up here at the moment because an academic at Edinburgh university called Mhari Black "a foul - mouthed little slut"

Now personally I can't stand Black's politics and from what I read about her during the election campaign her tweets were foul - mouthed and verging on sectarian but it would never occur to me to call her that.

marmaladeatkinz · 19/07/2015 23:12

Something is offensive, if the person it is directed at, is offended. It doesn't matter what the caller, says their intention was.

If you call me a slit and I am offended, then it is offensive
that's pretty much, the basis of the Equality Act

Mide7 · 19/07/2015 23:23

But that doesn't mean it's always an insult does it marma?

I agree with Laurie, language is ever evolving and meanings of words can change. Sauing that slut isn't a word I use because I don't see someone enjoying sex as a negative thing.

laurierf · 19/07/2015 23:25

Lass - I think we can safely say that "a foul-mouthed little slut" is meant as an insult. I'm assuming the academic is not a political fan of hers?

I'm not necessarily a political fan of hers, but I think her debut speech at Westminster was pretty bloody amazing. And I suspect, though couldn't say for sure as it's been a while since I watched it, she was wearing trousers and no - or minimal - make up. So it reinforces the point that she did fuck all to invite a comment on whether she has many casual sexual partners right now or not. I think the use of the word 'slut' there says a lot about the person saying it and has absolutely nothing to do with Mhari Black. If it's an academic insulting people using the the word slut when we want them to be responsible for young people's education… then I'm not surprised there's a stooshie.

Maybe in Scotland and other parts of the UK it's still only used as an insult by anyone of any age. But it's simply not the case everywhere.

There would be no reason for me not to outraged if that were not true.

laurierf · 19/07/2015 23:28

Something is offensive, if the person it is directed at, is offended. It doesn't matter what the caller, says their intention was

Sure, and if I accidentally direct a comment at someone that is offensive (because they find it so but I didn't mean it to be) I will apologise.

LassUnparalleled · 19/07/2015 23:52

And I suspect, though couldn't say for sure as it's been a while since I watched it, she was wearing trousers and no - or minimal - make up. So it reinforces the point that she did fuck all to invite a comment on whether she has many casual sexual partners right now or not.

That's rather reinforcing the point many of us were making. You seem to be saying because she wears masculine clothing, little make-up and seems to be unconcerned about her appearance ergo she can't be a slut/she's not sending out wrong signals. If she were more glamorous it would be OK?

laurierf · 19/07/2015 23:54

Lass. Read my previous posts on this thread.

mrstweefromtweesville · 20/07/2015 00:25

"Mrs my dd, doesn't 'slut up' you disgusting human being*
Do try to be polite.

DadWasHere · 20/07/2015 01:28

marmalade… not it's not. It was in the way it was used in this thread though.

Not just the thread. As long as society considers a woman with many partners a low value asset and a man with many partners a high value asset the term 'slut' will never shake its derisive and gendered roots in a wider social context.

Kiwiinkits · 20/07/2015 02:03

Back to the point of the thread. I would advise my 11 year old daughter going to the disco that some clothes and colours look good on her and some don't. And some styles can invite unwanted judgements about who she is. So, while she can choose skimpy styles they might not be good choices. End of.
For the same reasons I would advise a twenty something that wearing pajamas to a job interview might be an unwise choice. And I would advise a thirty something that skin tight Lycra might not be a wise choice for leisure wear. Basically, because individuals look and feel better in some clothes than others and clothes send signals about you. End of.
FWIW I think little boys in try hard suits and shiny polyester football attire look trash-tastic. So the same logic applies.

DadWasHere · 20/07/2015 02:38

Yea Kiwi, your right. As for that, my daughter was 12 when she started getting 'sexual stares' in public. A the time she wore full length medium fit jeans, medium fit neckline T tops in muted colours and sneakers. All very much conservative and by her own choice. But big boobs drastically alter any clothes equation and after she 'noticed being noticed' and disliked it she went into a baggy sweater phase.

JAPAB · 20/07/2015 02:57

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51
But it wasn't your friends thoughts that were the problem it was the fact that he acted on them ie he vocalised them to the people he was with.

So the problem here is not that a girl who is 14 has "nice" legs that are appreciated by a grown man, but that he didn't keep his reaction to himself.

That might be a problem, one that you have with the situation, and that is fair enough. His was that he had the thoughts at all. IME most typical men do not actually want to have appreciative thoughts about "children". Though I may be over-extrapolating. But there is no further to go with this because I know you believe that dress has nothing to do with anything, let alone believe that it can make someone appear older than they are.

(It's not clear but assuming he didn't vocalise them to her by shouting or whistling or something).

He didn't.

If the girl your friend made a salacious comment about had been in the same clothes but didn't have legs of a type that he admires - then he wouldn't have made the comment. Say she was very short and very fat with short stumpy legs. Nothing wrong with that, just assuming that they are not the sort of legs your friend felt moved to comment on. So, same clothes, female legs, no comment. Because it is the body that is of interest. Not the clothes.

The body is of primary interest. But dress can conceal, reveal, draw attention.

When I say that with all else equal, IME a woman in a short skirt with nice legs is more likely to have her legs appreciated than if she is wearing dungarees, ie dress makes a difference to some men in such matters, you are not contradicting me by saying 'but if she didn't have 'nice' legs or was 90 years old there would be no appreciation ergo dress has nothing to do with it.

Frankly I am amazed anyone is arguing against this.

Kiwiinkits · 20/07/2015 03:03

I also think ignoring the present social context in favour of wishing that it was otherwise (raging against the machine) is sort of pointless. Particularly if it is the parent's politics being played out on the child. Fight your own wars. Go ahead, wear pajamas to your own job interviews if you want to but letting your Dd do the same without providing guidance on the merits of doing so is remiss.

cailindana · 20/07/2015 03:04

What are the merits of covering up Kiwi?

JAPAB · 20/07/2015 03:08

marmaladeatkinz
Something is offensive, if the person it is directed at, is offended. It doesn't matter what the caller, says their intention was.

It is possible to be unreasonably offended. Not saying that is the case for anything specific, just making the general point that there has to be more to it than simply the fact that someone took offence.

A) I didn't ask about correlations that men make, blah blah. I am asking whether you agree that a 14 year old girl showing flesh is inviting sexual attention, as people are suggesting?

B) there is nothing 'theoretical' to say here. Do you think skimpy clothes say something about a Gus character. You replied, up to a point. Which point?

A) She is likely to get it. Whether she "invited" it would depend on whether this was her intention.

B) You've changed the question. I believe that in general clothes can express aspects of a person's personality and can be used for self-expression, up to a point. Whether, specifically, skimpy clothing says anything about a woman's character, well again it is possible up to a point. It might point to, to some degree, how much of an extrovert or introvert she is say.

But I suspect the real question is, does dressing skimpily tell us that a woman is a slut. My answer is no.

Kiwiinkits · 20/07/2015 03:28

Well, would you send your 11 year old to the disco naked Cailin?

cailindana · 20/07/2015 03:29

No Kiwi, is that what you think we've been discussing? Because it's not.

Kiwiinkits · 20/07/2015 03:32

She could go naked, sure. It wouldn't say anything whatsoever about her "honour". But it would indicate that both she and her parents weren't quite thinking it through. Because they lacked a social radar of what's appropriate or not. The merit of covering up is therefore social acceptability. In the same way that wearing a hat to meet the queen is socially acceptable. Or wearing a tie is socially acceptable. You can rage about it all you want but it's just the way it is.

cailindana · 20/07/2015 03:33

We're not talking about being naked Kiwi, do you understand the thread?

cailindana · 20/07/2015 03:34

Who's raging about ties?