sexualisation of children vs slut shaming

[bikeandrun]

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

WTF?

You are, without knowing me or any of my friends, saying that we were not assertive and confident?

And this is why it happened?

Rather than saying, oh well it could be luck, or a different area of the country or part of town, or different sorts of pubs and clubs, or because it was different years, or anything???

Again I would say, yes that is victim blaming!

The implication that a "certain sort" of female will get "trouble" and that she could have avoided it by being a "different sort" of female - that right there is victim blaming.

It puts all of the focus on the behaviour of the females and none on the behaviour of the males.

It says that the females could have avoided it if they had done x, y and z, and that as they didn't, well, what does that say about them.

To jump to the conclusion that there was something "wrong" with the girls rather than then men who would not just fuck off, that right there is victim blaming. And it's wrong isn't it. The assumption that this happened to girls who were doormatty and timnd (?) or whatever the idea is, is just incorrect. It was normal here, for all sorts of girls. Just what happened more often than not when you went out to the pub on a night it was lively.

So now we have two sorts of females identified on the thread who are asking for it:

• Ones who wear certain types of clothes (even if they're only 9)
• Girls who are lacking in confidence

OK well let's just say that's true. For a minute. How do we address this? Do we limit the clothing choices of females, and tell them they need to (magically) gain some innate confidence and if they can't do that they're better off not going out?

And if we take that action, will it reduce the number of incidents where men cause trouble for women/girls, whether at the milder or more illegal end of the scale?

I honestly think some people on here could do with examining their attitudes.

"Did you hear young Caitlin had some bloke following her in the pub and then home, and in the end she had to hide in the kebab shop and call someone to come get her?"

"Oh yes well she always did lack confidence"

I was thinking more about this just now:

"Are you seriously telling me women do not get a personal rush being seen out with an attractive/desirable man?"

And it made me think of "trophy wives". That is used to describe when a man who is rich/powerful has a much younger, very attractive wife.

So the implications there are:

She has been "bought"
As something to showcase him, his power / money / influence, that he can do this.
So he has his "trophy" wife who is appealing to look at, presumably desirable to other men, to show off much as the same man might show off a yacht or an expensive watch or a hand-made suit.

So inherent in that phrase is the woman as an object, and that her worth is purely tied up in her desirability to other men. Women who have worth (in ways deemed important for men) in other ways - who are very intelligent, or earn lots of money, are not described as "trophy wives".

Men are very rarely described as "trophy husbands" and in the cases where rich powerful women pair up with much younger, very attractive men, the women are ridiculed and the men pitied (for (presumably) having to have sex with a much older woman).

Anyway. The phrase used earlier "Are you seriously telling me women do not get a personal rush being seen out with an attractive/desirable man? is all bound in with this isn't it. It's about a woman whose worth is in her physcial appeal to other men, and "showing her off" as a way to increase the man's standing.

I suppose the opposite is when women have men with lots of money, some show off about that via possessions, holidays and so forth.

It shows the dynamic up very clearly, I think.

A woman is more likely to "show off" to other women about branded goods, for instance, than about the hotness of the man on her arm.

This is all bound up very closely in our gender roles. (Stating the obvious there!).

So women show off about possessions.

Men do too, and a woman counts among his possessions,

I guess is the logical conclusion there. Not very comforting!

still

What an incredibly stupid comment

My child has no confidence, very unassuming but does favour tight trousers...oh no wait it's fine, he is a boy and the odds of him being sexually assaulted are very low

Unlike my incredibly confident daughter who has already been inappropriately touched by a man. She just didn't realise that standing at the sweetie counter while picking her sweets made her fair game

From my experience and others' I've heard of, I do think men home in on less confident, more vulnerable types.

That does not nevertheless make it their fault.

Male behaviour is wrong for their need to enjoy power trips and getting off on frightening and hurting others. Or even just that behaviour is wrong, whether perpetrated by males or females. It is never the fault of the victim however they are feeling or whatever they are wearing. Hope that helps to clarify.

Preying on the vulnerable is sickening. But isn't that exactly what is happening? It's all just bullying, on a sliding scale going all the way down into hell. Why else do men attack women in this way at all except to exploit a vulnerability? A vulnerability, in fact the whole power differential, which is reinforced in both genders in myriad ways through socialisation from birth. Men have to seek power in some way and the worse of them prey on those who are perceived as much weaker than they are. Some will make weaker attacks on those who are very vulnerable: others will make stronger attacks on those who are less so (or whatever).

And no, that's not an excuse either, it's an attempt to find reasons. It is much easier to tackle behaviour when you find the reason for it. Perhaps I'm wrong and it's all just totally mindless.

Hopefully this won't open a huge can of worms but how would relationships start if someone didn't approach someone else? ( ok apart from the obvious but in a bar for example). This isn't leading anywhere, I'm just interested.

Is the problem being approached and asked if you'd like a drink or the fact that if you weren't interested and said go away, some people wouldn't listen?

Mide - what we're talking about here is sexual assault and rude, entitled, intimidating behaviour. Surely you can see the difference between that and a nice friendly smiley introduction followed by a chat?

Going back to the original question, I think it is a bit different depending on the age of the child in question.

My dd (age 9) is quite uninterested in clothes and prefers to wear jeans and a t-shirt. There are girls in her class who will wear full make-up and quite adult outfits when nit in school. I don't think for one moment that they are doing it to attract male attention. They are just trying to look grown up. I don't like that look on little girls - not because I think they are 'tempting to men', but because I just think it looks a bit unclassy tbh.

However, once we are talking about girls of 14 or so, the motivation can be different. Obviously there is no excuse whatsoever for any man to make approaches to an underage girl, whatever they are wearing, and girls should be able to dress without worrying about effects it might have on men, but it would be naive to think that none of those girls dress in that way expressly to attract male attention.

So say they do dress that way to attract male attention - does that mean they are then fair game?

I was kind of expecting that to come up! The latter, definitely. There is nothing wrong with someone saying in a friendly way, hey, would you like a drink. There is nothing at root wrong with it even if they are regarding you as female first and a person 2nd, ie if they're up for sex with strangers as sex and not relationships. All's fair between consenting adults. But why are men so unable to read the simple signal of lack of interest - even to the extent of ignoring 'fuck off and die' - why will they press their 'suit' regardless? Because they feel entitled and that the woman has no right to know her own mind.

Some men, obvioulsy. Sorry.

holmes

I would think that most 14 years olds dressed up or not would quite like the attention of a 14 year old boy, or maybe a 15 year old, or oh goodness an 18 year old

They'd have kittens if a man looking like their dad started making sexual come ons to them

To use my daughter as an example she knows that the boys like her...she had a 14 old ask her out it wouldn't cross her mind that a 30 year old might like to shag her and that by wearing denim shorts she is telling that 30 year old that she is fair game

But I'm probably wrong, my children are very unexperienced

Cailin yes of course I can. Was merely asking, obviously misunderstood. Although a smiley friendly approach means different things to different people. Not that that excuses some people's behaviour

Mide we're not talking about situations here where a nice guy has approached a woman in a bar and said "Hi my name's " We're talking about situations where a guy grabs a woman on a dance floor, pinches her bumb, grabs her chest, makes a sexual remark, comes up close to her and won't go away, trying to 'convince' her to dance/have a drink when she's clearly not interested.

I get the impression you're thinking women take offence at someone just talking to them - is that the case?

Plus even if a guy is nice and smiley that doesn't mean a woman has to talk to him. If he approaches politely but the woman doesn't respond, turns away, doesn't smile, then the decent response there is to shrug and walk away. The guy might think she's a bit of a bitch but it's totally up to her whether she actually wants to engage with him or not.

I'm sorry but what self respecting, responsible parent would allow their child of 11/12 years of age to leave the house in high heels, belly tops and short skirts?...... I would judge anyone who did.

No that isn't the case. Obviously some people don't like strangers talking to them. Do I think it's a female trait? Weirdly no.

I never said it did, I think your trying to see something in my posts that isn't there.

Why twilight? That's a genuine question.

Mide, your original question was about people approaching people in order to start relationships. The implication I took from that is that you thought we were objecting to ordinary guys just chatting, which of course there is nothing wrong with. Guys who grope or intimidate women are not looking to start relationships - it is an entirely different thing.

I said in my second post that I obviously misunderstood. There was no implication intended on my part

Fair enough Mide.

Because it makes them look a bit trampy and it looks so distasteful.

To me it just looks like kids dressing up like the women they see around them all the time. Do you find women who wear those kinds of clothes 'trampy and distasteful'?

I am sorry if you took my post to be victim blaming.I was just suggesting we protect our girls better by teaching them to be confident and assertive (and it can be taught) than telling them not to wear a short skirt.

No Cailindana, they are not fair game. As I said in that same post 'There is no excuse whatsoever for a man to make approaches to an underage girl, whatever they are wearing'. Did you miss that bit?

It's just that upthread, it was said or at least implied that we should be absolutely fine with underage girls wearing very skimpy, revealing clothes, because to disapprove of this is effectively victim blaming because we are implying that girls should moderate their behaviour rather than expecting men not to view them as sex objects.

However, I see no reason why we can't disapprove of the clothing as being simply inappropriate for their age. I would not let my 9 year-old dd go out in high heels, a crop top and full make-up. Not because I think for a moment that men would approach her because of her clothes, but because she's 9 and would look bloody awful!