PDA

View Full Version : 10 year olds in bikinis on the modelling catwalk - Valid art or crypto child porn?


astro
10-21-2006, 09:50 AM
In this article via fark, (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411719&in_page_id=1770) the article really doesn't make much of an impression until you see the little girl (maybe not even 10) in the not so little girl bikini. I don't consider myself prude, but I though this was a bit over the line.

don't ask
10-21-2006, 09:53 AM
Have you seen Little Miss Sunshine? It creeped me out far more than that photo.

Subway Prophet
10-21-2006, 10:05 AM
There's nothing crypto about it. There's a huge difference between kids in swimsuits playing at the pool, and kids in swimsuits modeling on catwalks in an oversexed industry.

alice_in_wonderland
10-21-2006, 11:00 AM
??? :confused: ??? It's a little girl in a swim suit. She doesn't look sexy at all. She's not wearing a tonne of make up, she's not wearing hooker shoes, she's just showing a swimsuit.

I don't get the big deal AT ALL.

astro
10-21-2006, 11:10 AM
??? :confused: ??? It's a little girl in a swim suit. She doesn't look sexy at all. She's not wearing a tonne of make up, she's not wearing hooker shoes, she's just showing a swimsuit.

I don't get the big deal AT ALL.

Maybe I haven't been to the beach enough lately, but are little girls suit bottoms usually cut that low across the bikini line these days? It looks like a grown woman's sexy low cut bikini on a little girl.

fessie
10-21-2006, 12:58 PM
Inappropriate and tasteless, IMHO - I didn't care for Cindy Crawford's daughter's modeling (http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m120/mikur/cindy1.jpg), either. Let kids be kids.

fisha
10-21-2006, 01:42 PM
Why do people think it's a good idea to sexualize children? For what reason? To expose children to fashion? Yeah, that's all we need, more vapid, materialistic women.

FormerMarineGuy
10-21-2006, 01:52 PM
This discussion reminds me of all of the hoopla about child models after the death of JonBenet Ramsey. Her death has nothing to do with this discussion, but it was brought up about the moral wrongs of children doing this 'sexy' modeling, striking adult poses, etc.

Children will continue to be models, actresses, singers, etc. However, the line has to be drawn somewhere. If I were to see my daughter come out in a bikini like the one provided by the OP, she would be back in her room in 1/2 a second. It bothers me when my wife wears stuff like that, let alone my little girl.

IMO, it is wrong and I have no idea who it really appeals to.

Queen Tonya
10-21-2006, 07:07 PM
??? :confused: ??? It's a little girl in a swim suit. She doesn't look sexy at all. She's not wearing a tonne of make up, she's not wearing hooker shoes, she's just showing a swimsuit.

I don't get the big deal AT ALL.

It's a little girl in a swimsuit that's clearly meant for women more interested in looking sexy than swimming, fer pete's sake! Look at the lighter area between suit and belly button, where her regular swimsuit bottoms normally cover.

Out of curiousity, are you okay with the tight, low-cut pants with sparkly sequins spelling "Princess" across the butt for little girls? That'd bother me, even though the girls in question aren't showing skin for instance.

Freudian Push Up Bra
10-21-2006, 07:44 PM
I'm a seventeen year old girl and I wouldn't be caught dead in that. The bikini top is far too small by proportion to be considered wearable by any level-headed female, as is the bottom half. Whoever came up with this idea ought to be smacked by angry mothers. Who agrees to send their child out in that anyway?

On second thought, don't answer that - I've seen some interesting ensembles on children far too young to dress themselves and their mothers are often similarly dressed.

Shakes
10-21-2006, 07:52 PM
You know; it's weird. If I saw that little girl on the beach with that on, I wouldn't think twice. _But seeing her on that catwalk like that somehow seems wrong.

But honestly it's not something I can get myself worked up about.

Guinastasia
10-21-2006, 07:59 PM
Meh, I had a bikini like that when I was eleven. I didn't wear it on a catwalk, though.

knightrabbit
10-21-2006, 08:20 PM
Me, I'm more disturbed by the lower-back tattoo (fake, I'd wager, but still) on the Crawford spawn in the linked photo. Bikinis are one thing, but since when is THAT appropriate for a little girl?

PunditLisa
10-21-2006, 08:55 PM
It could be a temporary tattoo. In fact, I'd bet it is.

The catwalk photo doesn't bother me too much because the model still looks youthful. My girls wore two piece suits when they were her age, though nothing that low cut. If she were vamped up, it would bug me.

Evil Captor
10-21-2006, 09:10 PM
Until all the hoopla about child molestation and so forth happened, girls that age used to wander around without any top on, because they didn't look any different from boys that age. They weren't sexual, in short. Now people have become so focussed on the interest that perverts have in children that any exposed flesh becomes "peddlling flesh for the molesters." Seems a bit of an over-reaction to me. Normal folks shouldn't set have to set their standards by what pedos like.

fessie
10-21-2006, 09:42 PM
Until all the hoopla about child molestation and so forth happened, girls that age used to wander around without any top on, because they didn't look any different from boys that age.

Five-yr-olds? Perhaps. Two-yr-olds? Definitely - and they still do (mine spent most of the summer running naked in their backyard).

But 10-yr-olds? No way.

alice_in_wonderland
10-21-2006, 09:48 PM
Out of curiousity, are you okay with the tight, low-cut pants with sparkly sequins spelling "Princess" across the butt for little girls? That'd bother me, even though the girls in question aren't showing skin for instance.


Why wouldn't I be? They're little girls, and totally non sexual as far as i'm concerned.

FWIW - I had a suit like the one in the pic when I was that age. I know because the top used to fall off because I had no boobs, because I was 10.

really - it seems like people are looking for somethign to get worked up about

fisha
10-21-2006, 09:54 PM
Could someone please give me a reasonable explanation why you would think that having a very young girl in a mini string bikini or pants/sweats/shorts with something written across their ass is a good idea? What is the motivation? That's what I can't figure out.

fisha
10-21-2006, 10:00 PM
Until all the hoopla about child molestation and so forth happened, girls that age used to wander around without any top on, because they didn't look any different from boys that age. They weren't sexual, in short. Now people have become so focussed on the interest that perverts have in children that any exposed flesh becomes "peddlling flesh for the molesters." Seems a bit of an over-reaction to me. Normal folks shouldn't set have to set their standards by what pedos like.

Strangely enough, in my mind, naked is ok, up until the time about 8 or so, maybe 10. It's at least natural, to a certain extent. Running around in the yard, get wet, get dirty, whatever, they're little kids. But dressing them like little hookers is beyond me. Why, oh why?

Subway Prophet
10-21-2006, 10:00 PM
Whoever came up with this idea ought to be smacked by angry mothers.

I've tried that. It's actually not as easy as it sounds.

First you need to get a good grip on the angry mother's ankles. This can be problematic if they're resisting. I recommend duct tape around the legs and a good stern talking-to.

Second, you need to swing the angry mother around to get good momentum going. Let's say it's a tiny angry mother. That's still a good 110-130 lbs., or about 3 40-lb. sacks of flour, all tied together. You gotta be pretty strong if you can swing her around with enough force to get her head off the ground. And if she wasn't resisting before, she will be by now. I recommend a back brace and ear plugs.

Lastly, as impressively fierce as angry mothers appear in their natural habitat, when weilded as a weapon they are surprisingly ineffective. You could try to attach a few rows of spikes to inflict extra damage, but why spend more than you have to?

No, what you really need for smacking fashion industry pedophiles is a good solid oak baseball bat. I recommend the larger variety, with rusty nails sticking out. In addition to giving the fashion industry pedophiles a damn fine smacking, the bat will also come in handy when you must fend off angry mothers who object to being used as a weapon.

Of course, your mileage may vary. I am neither a lawyer, a doctor, or a homebrew weapons expert. Do your homework, and experiment with various techniques, before you approach either angry mothers or fashion industry pedophiles.

Magiver
10-21-2006, 10:30 PM
I guess it's a matter of opinion as to whether it's sexy or not. Of course, it would be the pedophile's opinion that counted and at that point the picture could always be used on a milk carton. :rolleyes:

Zebra
10-21-2006, 10:32 PM
I don't see anything sexual in the cat walk photo or the Cindy Crawford kid photo.

Catwalk fashion shows are not about the models but about the clothes. It is not a parade of 'women I'd liked sthupp'. Catwalk fashion shows are not big sexy events People go to them to look at CLOTHES.

Clothing as commerce, as in 'This is our new fall line' or clothing as pure ART.



this sort of thing just reminds me of a classic joke.

A man goes to see a psychiatrist and the doctors starts off with an ink-blot test.
The first image, the man says "I see two people having sex'
The second image the man says "I see three women having sex'
The third image the man says "I see a dozen people having sex'

The doctor looks at him and says, "Well, it is clear you have an obsession with sex."

"ME?!?!" the man said, "YOU are the one with all the dirty pictures!"

Lucky 13
10-21-2006, 10:44 PM
When I first saw the picture, I thought, "Time for a bigger bathing suit, Mom, she's outgrown this one."

I showed it to my mom, sisters and 9-year-old niece. The consensus was "3 small fabric triangles+ some string = way too revealing for a 10-year-old."

DJ Motorbike
10-21-2006, 11:54 PM
That would be a sexy bikini on a woman - not fit for children. Rated "M" for mature.

Penchan
10-22-2006, 01:19 AM
The girl in the picture is a miniature woman on the catwalk, and that's wrong in my opinion. If she had the full panty bottom it wouldn't be a big deal, but dude, look at how low her bikini bottom is. If you saw a woman wearing something that low, wouldn't you be pretty :dubious: ? I would. A child wearing that cut of bikini bottom, and then walking on the catwalk seems like she's pretending to be one of the adult models. And what do adult models do? Make the clothes look sexy and stylish. The latter is fine for a kid, but the former is definitely not.

archmichael
10-22-2006, 01:45 AM
I just see an adorable girl in a bikini.

It seems like more and more we are determining what is appropriate based on what some pedophile somewhere might get off on, which is impossible considering there are guys that are turned on infants.

Freudian Push Up Bra
10-22-2006, 04:48 AM
Subway Prophet - I love you.

Back on topic; perhaps I am overreacting a bit at this but what really bugs is like what Lucky 13 said - it looks too small on her. Plus the fact that you can see so much of her tummy towards her crotch is actually quite disturbing for me at least because I have young cousins and I'd hate for them to think that dressing like that is cool at their age.

And I do agree that it's fortunate that she's not been sexualized in any other way - makeup, heels, tatts etc. but when you take any sort of garment designed to show off a woman's sexually attractive feature; short skirts to show leg, tummy tops to show off flat abs, tiny bikinis to reveal most of her body and put them on a child, it's disgusting because most people don't find that attractive. They find it disturbing because they don't see children as sexual objects and shouldn't have to.

That said; yes fashion shows are about the fashion. But this fashion is for women, not little girls. If it was a bunch of little girls bouncing up and down the catwalk in appropriate swim wear, well why not? If they're having fun, they should go for it.

But also on appropriate swimwear; shouldn't we be encouraging kids to be more sun-safe and conscious of what effect exposure to the sun will have? Put away the bikinis and offer some nicer coverups that don't look dopey for those who are sun-conscious. The reason kids think it's cool to dress 'sexy' is because we've said that 'sexy' = 'cool' = revealing skin. If we turn it around and say it's cool to be covered up, then kids will fall in with it. They just want to be accepted.

Derleth
10-22-2006, 05:41 AM
Why do people think it's a good idea to sexualize children? For what reason?This is a perfect example of begging the question. In this case, the question being begged is "Is this sexual?". This quote assumes it's sexual and asks questions from that perspective, even though the case has plainly not been made and is still up for discussion, as this thread itself indicates.

An example this perfect deserves to be highlighted.

Johanna
10-22-2006, 06:28 AM
any sort of garment designed to show off a woman's sexually attractive feature; short skirts to show legIronically, if you go back more than 40 years (before Mary Quant introduced the miniskirt), short skirts were considered appropriate only for little girls, never for grown women. Dropping the hemline way down used to be a sign of maturity.

<sigh> I was born too late for 1940s fashions. Women looked sharp then.

mr. jp
10-22-2006, 07:02 AM
crypto child porn

lavenderviolet
10-22-2006, 07:07 AM
Yikes. I agree with those saying that bikini bottom is much too low-cut and revealing for a little girl to wear. If it were a more modest swimsuit bottom that didn't draw so much attention to her pubic region it wouldn't seem nearly so bad.

I don't pay much attention to fashion, let alone kid's fashions (being a non-parent), so I wonder what boys' swimsuits look like nowadays. Has anyone here seen little boys wearing skimpy g-string bikini swimsuits or speedos at the beach?
If people don't do that with their sons, why do they think it's desirable to put their pre-pubescent daughters in skimpy/suggestive clothes?
I think on some level it is indeed sexualizing these poor little girls. Considering that the fashion industry has so often used anorexic models who in some ways resemble pre-pubescent girls more than adult women with curves, it almost seems like this is the fashion industry's "young and thin" aesthetic taken to an extreme.

Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor
10-22-2006, 08:09 AM
I see the daughter of a designer's business associate, getting on the catwalk as a favor for her Dad/Mom.

None of the adults imagining the fanaticism of the world around their child.

The PC Police are the ones with the dirty minds.

irishgirl
10-22-2006, 08:31 AM
Actually, what upsets me more than the skimpy bikini is that some people are upset because the poor (female) child was exposed to topless or near topless women :rolleyes:

Yup. Nudity is always sexual.
It will scar the poor child for life to see breasts.

There aren't enough rolleyes in the world.

I wouldn't let my child out in that bikini, mostly because it looks 3 sizes too small, impractical for an active child and uncomfortable. Would I take my child to a beach where there was topless sunbathing- absolutely, and I'd probably be topless myself!

Patty O'Furniture
10-22-2006, 08:45 AM
Originally Posted by dahfisheroo
Why do people think it's a good idea to sexualize children? For what reason?

This is a perfect example of begging the question. In this case, the question being begged is "Is this sexual?". This quote assumes it's sexual and asks questions from that perspective, even though the case has plainly not been made and is still up for discussion, as this thread itself indicates.

Taken as read. The entire fashion industry revolves around the concept of "SEX SELLS". Throwing a child into the middle of that is not good IMHO.

I wouldn't call it krypto KP, just inappropriate.

Zebra
10-22-2006, 09:12 AM
<snip>
And I do agree that it's fortunate that she's not been sexualized in any other way - makeup, heels, tatts etc. but when you take any sort of garment designed to show off a woman's sexually attractive feature; short skirts to show leg, tummy tops to show off flat abs, tiny bikinis to reveal most of her body and put them on a child, it's disgusting because most people don't find that attractive.

That said; yes fashion shows are about the fashion. But this fashion is for women, not little girls. If it was a bunch of little girls bouncing up and down the catwalk in appropriate swim wear, well why not? If they're having fun, they should go for it.

But also on appropriate swimwear; shouldn't we be encouraging kids to be more sun-safe and conscious of what effect exposure to the sun will have? Put away the bikinis and offer some nicer coverups that don't look dopey for those who are sun-conscious. The reason kids think it's cool to dress 'sexy' is because we've said that 'sexy' = 'cool' = revealing skin. If we turn it around and say it's cool to be covered up, then kids will fall in with it. They just want to be accepted.


Sorry but I'm just going to have to break this down and I won't be going in order but...



You seem to be confusing your own personal opinion with facts.



They find it disturbing because they don't see children as sexual objects and shouldn't have to.

Nobody, but nobody makes anyone see a young girl as a sexual object. If you looked at the picture in the OP and you saw a sexual object, that was your head. Just because you find it disgusting, doesn't mean that most people do. Just because you find it 'sexual' doesn't mean that it is.


when you take any sort of garment designed to show off a woman's sexually attractive feature; short skirts to show leg, tummy tops to show off flat abs, tiny bikinis to reveal most of her body and put them on a child, it's disgusting because most people don't find that attractive.

There are many ways a garment can 'show off' a part of a person's anatomy. Not everyone, finds 'legs' to be a sexually attractive feature. Not everyone sees 'tummys' as a sexual feature. Not every one sees 'breasts' as a sexually attractive feature. Sometimes you can cover up a feature to accent it. Would you be upset if she were wearing a tight sweater? Little girls have bodies. Seeing her flesh, doesn't mean that she has been sexualized. If she is running around in her ballet tights is that ok. Specifically, what parts of a young girl is it OK for people to see? You said there are some you should have to see and that it is wrong to see, so what parts are OK to see?



And I do agree that it's fortunate that she's not been sexualized in any other way - makeup, heels, tatts etc


I don't find any of those, inherently sexual. Makeup, Shoes, and tatoes sex up people? Actually, makeup at a fashion show is frequently used to downplay any individuality of the model. Why do you think runway models walk with that expressionless gaze? Why do you think they don't make eye contact with people in the audience? It is because, you arent' supposed to look at them. She does have a little body painting on her leg. Did you miss that? Do you approve of that? Or do you fear that might make dirty old men want to have sex with her?



But also on appropriate swimwear; shouldn't we be encouraging kids to be more sun-safe and conscious of what effect exposure to the sun will have? Put away the bikinis and offer some nicer coverups that don't look dopey for those who are sun-conscious. The reason kids think it's cool to dress 'sexy' is because we've said that 'sexy' = 'cool' = revealing skin. If we turn it around and say it's cool to be covered up, then kids will fall in with it. They just want to be accepted.


You can do that with your kid, but getting the world to agree to raise their kids in the Freudian Push Up Bra method, may be a bit of a challenge. Good luck with that.

astro
10-22-2006, 09:35 AM
I don't find any of those, inherently sexual. Makeup, Shoes, and tatoes sex up people? Actually, makeup at a fashion show is frequently used to downplay any individuality of the model. Why do you think runway models walk with that expressionless gaze? Why do you think they don't make eye contact with people in the audience? It is because, you arent' supposed to look at them. She does have a little body painting on her leg. Did you miss that? Do you approve of that? Or do you fear that might make dirty old men want to have sex with her?

You can do that with your kid, but getting the world to agree to raise their kids in the Freudian Push Up Bra method, may be a bit of a challenge. Good luck with that.

Seriously.... all this rhetorical tap dancing you're doing re what is, and is not, perceived as "sexual" aside, you don't think a pre-pubescent girl with a low cut bikini riding just above her pubis, strutting down a modelling catwalk has sexual connotations? Where do I buy these extra large horse blinders you seem to have access to?

alice_in_wonderland
10-22-2006, 10:47 AM
Seriously.... all this rhetorical tap dancing you're doing re what is, and is not, perceived as "sexual" aside, you don't think a pre-pubescent girl with a low cut bikini riding just above her pubis, strutting down a modelling catwalk has sexual connotations? Where do I buy these extra large horse blinders you seem to have access to?

I must have a super jumbo pair as well, 'cus I just don't find a little girl in a swim suit sexual.

FWIW - most 10 year old girls strut around, regardless of where they are, and she's not painted up like a barbie doll. If my 9 year old neice was wearing this and we were going to the beach, I wouldn't notice at all, other than to tell her it was a cute suit.

Oh well, different strokes, I guess.

Menocchio
10-22-2006, 10:51 AM
I'd be less desturbed if she was naked, honestly. That's just the human body.

By declaring parts of it off-limits for public viewing, we sexualize them. Then, when we cut as close as possible to the taboo areas, we're teasing. This is a swimsuit designed to tantalize. It's sexual because it exposes everything but the genitals and breasts.

alice_in_wonderland
10-22-2006, 10:56 AM
Seriously.... all this rhetorical tap dancing you're doing re what is, and is not, perceived as "sexual" aside, you don't think a pre-pubescent girl with a low cut bikini riding just above her pubis, strutting down a modelling catwalk has sexual connotations? Where do I buy these extra large horse blinders you seem to have access to?

I must have a super jumbo pair as well, 'cus I just don't find a little girl in a swim suit sexual.

FWIW - most 10 year old girls strut around, regardless of where they are, and she's not painted up like a barbie doll. If my 9 year old neice was wearing this and we were going to the beach, I wouldn't notice at all, other than to tell her it was a cute suit.

Oh well, different strokes, I guess.

fisha
10-22-2006, 11:24 AM
This is a perfect example of begging the question. In this case, the question being begged is "Is this sexual?". This quote assumes it's sexual and asks questions from that perspective, even though the case has plainly not been made and is still up for discussion, as this thread itself indicates.

An example this perfect deserves to be highlighted.


I have attained perfection through begging. Every man's dream. I'll take a picture. Thanks, Derleth.

Here is the difference between naked and sexualized, at least in my opinion.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/41983136@N00/276274165/

That's a cute kid, naked, non sexualized, although a little dirty.

I like naked. I like kids. I like sex. Just not mixed all together.


No children were traumatized by the photography. Except of course when he's 16 and we trot out the photo album in front of his new girlfriend.

fisha
10-22-2006, 11:28 AM
Actually, what upsets me more than the skimpy bikini is that some people are upset because the poor (female) child was exposed to topless or near topless women :rolleyes:

Yup. Nudity is always sexual.
It will scar the poor child for life to see breasts.

There aren't enough rolleyes in the world.

I wouldn't let my child out in that bikini, mostly because it looks 3 sizes too small, impractical for an active child and uncomfortable. Would I take my child to a beach where there was topless sunbathing- absolutely, and I'd probably be topless myself!


I agree with you on the topless beach.

FilmGeek
10-22-2006, 11:42 AM
That kid is 10? Seriously? Lucky kid.

I was a C-cup at 10.

I'm in the inappropriate catagory because at 10 a kid shouldn't be wearing a swimsuit she can't swim in.

zweisamkeit
10-22-2006, 12:46 PM
Why do people think it's a good idea to sexualize children? For what reason? To expose children to fashion? Yeah, that's all we need, more vapid, materialistic women.



:rolleyes: Riiiiiight. Having an interest in fashion automatically makes a woman vapid and materialistic. There aren't enough roll eyes in the world for that remark.

I love fashion and makeup and shoes and everything. I also love reading Russian Literature, studying languages, doing various needlecrafts, playing video games and have done anthropology homework for fun. But hey, I love fashion, so I'm just vapid and materialistic.

alice_in_wonderland
10-22-2006, 01:42 PM
But hey, I love fashion, so I'm just vapid and materialistic.

This is an arguement you'll never win. Don't you know - us gals that like to take care of ourselves have NOTHING going for us other than that? Jeez - how old are you, you should know this by now.

Magiver
10-22-2006, 05:02 PM
Nobody, but nobody makes anyone see a young girl as a sexual object. If you looked at the picture in the OP and you saw a sexual object, that was your head. Just because you find it disgusting, doesn't mean that most people do. Just because you find it 'sexual' doesn't mean that it is.Well DUH. It's not about your opinion. It's about having the forsight to realize that pedophiles exist. Dressing a child in an outfit that is out of a Sport's Illustrated swimsuit issue is a dangerous thing.

There are many ways a garment can 'show off' a part of a person's anatomy. Not everyone, finds 'legs' to be a sexually attractive feature. Not everyone sees 'tummys' as a sexual feature. Not every one sees 'breasts' as a sexually attractive feature. Sometimes you can cover up a feature to accent it. Would you be upset if she were wearing a tight sweater? Little girls have bodies. Seeing her flesh, doesn't mean that she has been sexualized. If she is running around in her ballet tights is that ok. Specifically, what parts of a young girl is it OK for people to see? You said there are some you should have to see and that it is wrong to see, so what parts are OK to see? A bikini is considered a sexy outfit. What is shown is the skimpiest of the lot. Restated, it is an icon of sexuality applied to a child.

I don't find any of those, inherently sexual. Makeup, Shoes, and tatoes sex up people? Actually, makeup at a fashion show is frequently used to downplay any individuality of the model. Why do you think runway models walk with that expressionless gaze? Why do you think they don't make eye contact with people in the audience? It is because, you arent' supposed to look at them. She does have a little body painting on her leg. Did you miss that? Do you approve of that? Or do you fear that might make dirty old men want to have sex with her? You see a little girl that could have fallen out of a Norman Rockwell painting. I see a nice man who pulls up in a car and asks her for help looking for his lost puppy.

archmichael
10-22-2006, 05:03 PM
Seriously.... all this rhetorical tap dancing you're doing re what is, and is not, perceived as "sexual" aside, you don't think a pre-pubescent girl with a low cut bikini riding just above her pubis, strutting down a modelling catwalk has sexual connotations? Where do I buy these extra large horse blinders you seem to have access to?

I don't see any sexual connotations.

Haven't you every baby sat young girls? They are blissfully unaware of the sexual aspects of their bodies. They will not notice that thier skirts are riding up showing their panties, or do somersaults in skirts. That girl in the picture probably has no idea of that some adults might act like some people are acting in this thread, or understand what the big deal is about.

Let say a girl likes to wear a certain outfit because she likes the way it looks. An adult comes along and tells her not to wear it because guys might get sexually excited. Isn't this form of forced sexual awareness, sexualizing children?

archmichael
10-22-2006, 05:11 PM
You see a little girl that could have fallen out of a Norman Rockwell painting. I see a nice man who pulls up in a car and asks her for help looking for his lost puppy.So why even allow children to go outside an play? Or do you think that it's only young girls who wear sexy outfits that are getting abducted? And how about the young boys? What outfits are they wearing that are making them
targets? Jeans and shirts?

astro
10-22-2006, 05:17 PM
I don't see any sexual connotations.

Haven't you every baby sat young girls? They are blissfully unaware of the sexual aspects of their bodies. They will not notice that thier skirts are riding up showing their panties, or do somersaults in skirts. That girl in the picture probably has no idea of that some adults might act like some people are acting in this thread, or understand what the big deal is about.

Let say a girl likes to wear a certain outfit because she likes the way it looks. An adult comes along and tells her not to wear it because guys might get sexually excited. Isn't this form of forced sexual awareness, sexualizing children?


To correlate the appropriateness of this outfit to the child's intention is absurd. The level of the child's naive innocence is utterly beside the point. Young children depend on adults to care for and protect them. If, in a alternative universe or culture, a low cut bikini style outfit was not a sexualized from of dress it might be perfectly acceptable. However, in modern western society it is a highly sexualized form of dress and as such is not appropriate for young, pre-pubescent children.

Magiver
10-22-2006, 05:52 PM
So why even allow children to go outside an play? Or do you think that it's only young girls who wear sexy outfits that are getting abducted? And how about the young boys? What outfits are they wearing that are making them
targets? Jeans and shirts? You're right. I think you should dress all your children like this and turn them loose. It's the only logical thing to do.

What was I thinking when I said bikinis were considered sexy and it was a dumb idea to attach this iconography on a prepubescent child. A 10 year old girl has no concept of sexuality and therefore would not have to deal with a pedophile who in turn would have no interest in a child wearing almost no clothing at all.

archmichael
10-22-2006, 06:03 PM
You're right. I think you should dress all your children like this and turn them loose. It's the only logical thing to do.

What was I thinking when I said bikinis were considered sexy and it was a dumb idea to attach this iconography on a prepubescent child. A 10 year old girl has no concept of sexuality and therefore would not have to deal with a pedophile who in turn would have no interest in a child wearing almost no clothing at all.Look sarcasm aside, this debate is similar to a lot of other issues. I can't live my life based on what terrorist might do. I can't have my wife dress down because what some rapist might do. And I think that children that age should be allowed to be children without having sexual rules put upon them because there are pedophiles out there

Zebra
10-22-2006, 06:42 PM
Seriously.... all this rhetorical tap dancing you're doing re what is, and is not, perceived as "sexual" aside, you don't think a pre-pubescent girl with a low cut bikini riding just above her pubis, strutting down a modelling catwalk has sexual connotations? Where do I buy these extra large horse blinders you seem to have access to?

How many 'runway' shows have you been to? As I have said, many times, they are not sexual. They are not about the models. The top runway models, you don't know their names. Those events are not about the models, they are about clothing. CLOTHING.

The models don't mean a thing.

Why do you insist that the catwalk makes it a 'sexy' environment? They are not sexy environments. I've been to them and have worked backstage. They are not there to get people off.

Zebra
10-22-2006, 06:49 PM
You're right. I think you should dress all your children like this and turn them loose. It's the only logical thing to do.

What was I thinking when I said bikinis were considered sexy and it was a dumb idea to attach this iconography on a prepubescent child. A 10 year old girl has no concept of sexuality and therefore would not have to deal with a pedophile who in turn would have no interest in a child wearing almost no clothing at all.



So it would be my fault if I allowed my daughter to wear this when a pervert came up and raped her? After all, if I didn't dress her this way, then he wouldn't want her. That is what you are saying. You might think a bikini is an ICON of sexuality, but go to public pool man and look at real women, instead of the women in that 'sport' magazine. (not always sexy)



You're right. I think you should dress all your children like this and turn them loose. It's the only logical thing to do.

What was I thinking when I said bikinis were considered sexy and it was a dumb idea to attach this iconography on a prepubescent child. A 10 year old girl has no concept of sexuality and therefore would not have to deal with a pedophile who in turn would have no interest in a child wearing almost no clothing at all.

So why don't you answere the question? What parts of the little girl are OK to show in any context? Tell us.

Magiver
10-22-2006, 06:58 PM
Look sarcasm aside, this debate is similar to a lot of other issues. I can't live my life based on what terrorist might do. I can't have my wife dress down because what some rapist might do. And I think that children that age should be allowed to be children without having sexual rules put upon them because there are pedophiles out there My apologies for the sarcasm but it was to drive home a point.

I agree with your premise and I understand your point but you also have to think in terms of probability.

By your logic I should be able to drive anywhere I want because that is my right to do so. There are places I will not drive to because it is dangerous to do so. I can increase the level of danger in such an area by:
- driving specific cars
- owning specific rims.
- driving at night

It's a sad state of affairs but that is life. When I was 5 I walked a 1/2 mile to school everyday with my 8 year old sister. We didn't worry about child molesters because the entire neighborhood was very aware of what went on around it. The idea of Columbine was non-existent. The world is a different place today. I love Lucy was replaced by Jerry Springer. You can now bring videos of people having sex with animals into your house via the internet we're using now. Internet pedophile rings have been busted before and I have no reason to doubt they exist today in abundance.

Apply the reality of life to this discussion. Sex sells and Sports Illustrated swimsuit addition is an example of the clothing in question. A bikini is considered a sexy clothing item. The skimpier the bikini the sexier it is. It's not arguable to say that it shouldn't be or that not all people feel this way. Putting an outfit that is considered sexy on a little girl is not a good thing. In this case she is supposed to be 10. This is far different than 5. Even her hairstyle is something an adult woman would wear, particularly with a bikini. I can't remember if it was flowers but she had something in her hair and she looked like a Hawaiian vacation ad. Personally, I wouldn't want my girlfriend to wear something this skimpy. She would have to shave down to her mons-pubis.

So while your point is that she should be allowed to live her childhood free of sexual outside influence the reality of pedophilia is real. IMO the outfit in question represents a significant absence of clothing and will increase the likelihood of predatory behavior. Do you see my point here?

Magiver
10-22-2006, 07:01 PM
So why don't you answere the question? What parts of the little girl are OK to show in any context? Tell us. If you don't get it you will never get it and I'm not going to banter with you. I hope you never have to deal with the consequences of a pedophile. Have a nice day. Seriously.

zweisamkeit
10-22-2006, 07:03 PM
It's a sad state of affairs but that is life. When I was 5 I walked a 1/2 mile to school everyday with my 8 year old sister. We didn't worry about child molesters because the entire neighborhood was very aware of what went on around it. The idea of Columbine was non-existent. The world is a different place today. I love Lucy was replaced by Jerry Springer. You can now bring videos of people having sex with animals into your house via the internet we're using now. Internet pedophile rings have been busted before and I have no reason to doubt they exist today in abundance.


Gee, you don't think maybe it's just increased awareness of the seamier side of humanity? When all news channels/broadcasts focus on disasters or terrors looming to prey on people's fears, of course it seems like it's EVERYWHERE, because that's all we see. The news spends maybe 2 minutes on a little feel-good segment about the little old ladies having a bake sale to raise funds for a trip to Europe so they can go to their parents' homelands before they kick off, and the rest of the time is CHILD PREDATORS, SERIAL KILLERS, STALKER RAPISTS, POPTARTS OF DOOM, etc.

So again, of course it seems like it's everywhere now. I really doubt it's all that much worse than when you were a kid; your parents just weren't conditioned to freak out at every little thing that might happen.

zweisamkeit
10-22-2006, 07:07 PM
Oh, and regarding Leave it to Beaver, I Love Lucy et al:

The people I know who lived during that era say that real life obviously wasn't that perfect. It's a total perfect-fantasy of a perfect-fantasy family that didn't exist in real life. At least the ones who aren't looking with selective vision (so they can edit out every single bad thing that happened and gripe about 'kids these days', etc) do.

fisha
10-22-2006, 07:13 PM
I am more concerned about it from the parents thought process, as opposed to some drooling bogeyman pedophile point of view.

Now Derleth will take me to task once again, I am sure, but if a parent dresses a child in a sexually provocative manner, what could they possibly be thinking? No one has yet answered that question.

Magiver
10-22-2006, 07:14 PM
Gee, you don't think maybe it's just increased awareness of the seamier side of humanity? When all news channels/broadcasts focus on disasters or terrors looming to prey on people's fears, of course it seems like it's EVERYWHERE, because that's all we see. The news spends maybe 2 minutes on a little feel-good segment about the little old ladies having a bake sale to raise funds for a trip to Europe so they can go to their parents' homelands before they kick off, and the rest of the time is CHILD PREDATORS, SERIAL KILLERS, STALKER RAPISTS, POPTARTS OF DOOM, etc.

So again, of course it seems like it's everywhere now. I really doubt it's all that much worse than when you were a kid; your parents just weren't conditioned to freak out at every little thing that might happen. While there is certainly more public awareness there is also a higher degree of the nonsense that goes on to day. When I was a child we knew all our neighbors. A stranger could not walk down the street and talk to a child without someone noticing. Not only did events like Columbine not occur on a regular basis we could take classes in how to handle fire-arms which included shooting a pistol. Some schools had target shooting as a pass-time sport. When I as in shop class I made a knife with an 8 inch blade (solid brass fittings, walnut handle, blade polished to a mirror finish and sharpened well enough to shave with).

Magiver
10-22-2006, 07:20 PM
Oh, and regarding Leave it to Beaver, I Love Lucy et al:

The people I know who lived during that era say that real life obviously wasn't that perfect. It's a total perfect-fantasy of a perfect-fantasy family that didn't exist in real life. At least the ones who aren't looking with selective vision (so they can edit out every single bad thing that happened and gripe about 'kids these days', etc) do. Sorry dude. It existed and I lived it. I've also watched it slowly disappear so welcome to YOUR world. There are still close knit communities around but their more like pockets within.

Magiver
10-22-2006, 07:21 PM
"they're", not "their".

archmichael
10-22-2006, 07:28 PM
So while your point is that she should be allowed to live her childhood free of sexual outside influence the reality of pedophilia is real. IMO the outfit in question represents a significant absence of clothing and will increase the likelihood of predatory behavior. Do you see my point here?I understand your point of view, it's just a irreconcilable life views. It was just like you growing up. I didn't have to worry about it. I want children to have the carefree childhood like I have, but we can never get there by buying into all this alarmism. As terrible a columbine was the chances of a high school kid getting killed in a shooting spree is so low that it's pointless in worrying. But there are people who want you to be scared. The government wants you to be scared of al Qaida. Moralist who dont want women to where certain types of clothes, because there are rapist out there. I just refuse to buy into the hysteria.

Magiver
10-22-2006, 07:50 PM
I understand your point of view, it's just a irreconcilable life views. It was just like you growing up. I didn't have to worry about it. I want children to have the carefree childhood like I have, but we can never get there by buying into all this alarmism. As terrible a columbine was the chances of a high school kid getting killed in a shooting spree is so low that it's pointless in worrying. But there are people who want you to be scared. The government wants you to be scared of al Qaida. Moralist who dont want women to where certain types of clothes, because there are rapist out there. I just refuse to buy into the hysteria. We're on the same page. BTW, I went back and looked at the article and I think the age estimate is way off. Someone was quoted in the article (after the show) as thinking she was that old. If you look at her I would say 6 is closer to the mark. You can call me an alarmest if you wish but I am exposed to people from all walks of life. I'm continually amazed at what people tell me about what goes on in schools today. Even my old HS has changed. They are having social problems now that didn't exist when I was in school. That's not to say we didn't have any problems but we were able to deal with it on a level that far exceeded the Jerry Springer mentality I'm seeing today.

While Columbine events are relatively few in number they are exponentially higher compared to my school days and I expect that to increase over time. Yes, that would be an alarmest POV but that's how I see it. Don't wanna feel this way but I do.

Zebra
10-22-2006, 07:55 PM
You know Magiver, there are a lot of things I don't get. Please explaine to me how:

Columbine figures into our discussion about little girl swimwear.


How driving while owning specific rims can increase my safety.

(I dont' own a car, I know what rims are but I have no idea what you are talking about)



As to your description of driving, my impression from your post, and I maybe wrong, but it sounds like you are saying you don't drive, especially at night, to certain areas of town. Perhaps the area where mostly people of color live. Funny thing about Leave it to Beaver, though the show was in Black and White,(like me the Zebra) it was mostly all white.

So please, you've really jumped the track here about a girl wearing a skimpy bikini on a "heavens!" catwalk, to how you lived a great life when you were a kid and you could make knives in school.

Really, I don't get that. Maybe I'm just soooooo stupid but please, give fighting my ignorance another try.

Magiver
10-22-2006, 08:24 PM
You know Magiver, there are a lot of things I don't get. Please explaine to me how:

Columbine figures into our discussion about little girl swimwear.


How driving while can increase my safety.

(I dont' own a car, I know what rims are but I have no idea what you are talking about)



As to your description of driving, my impression from your post, and I maybe wrong, but it sounds like you are saying you don't drive, especially at night, to certain areas of town. Perhaps the area where mostly people of color live. Funny thing about Leave it to Beaver, though the show was in Black and White,(like me the Zebra) it was mostly all white.

So please, you've really jumped the track here about a girl wearing a skimpy bikini on a "heavens!" catwalk, to how you lived a great life when you were a kid and you could make knives in school.

Really, I don't get that. Maybe I'm just soooooo stupid but please, give fighting my ignorance another try. You're a lucky person to have evolved beyond the need for a car. Aside from that I think you have all the level of awareness necessary to deal with life but choose not to acknowledge it. I will answer an earlier question of yours. I can't tell you how you would feel if your daughter was attacked but I bet if you gave it some thought you would have some idea. Post 54 stands. And thanks for bringing race into the conversation.

Sarahfeena
10-22-2006, 08:58 PM
I'll tell you this...my 10-year-old daughter would wear that bikini over my dead body. And, frankly, I wouldn't be too thrilled about it at ANY age, even when she is old enough to make her own decisions about her swim attire.

Zebra
10-22-2006, 09:22 PM
You're a lucky person to have evolved beyond the need for a car. Aside from that I think you have all the level of awareness necessary to deal with life but choose not to acknowledge it. I will answer an earlier question of yours. I can't tell you how you would feel if your daughter was attacked but I bet if you gave it some thought you would have some idea. Post 54 stands. And thanks for bringing race into the conversation.



I live in a city that affords public transportation and owning a car is much more a luxury, one which I, can not afford.

You are the one who has wandered off the track and you are the one that refuses to explain what you mean, leaving me to guess.

What did you mean by owning the right rims?

Explain it to me.

Come on.

It is your topic that you have thrust here, come come, be polite and explain what you ment by that.


If my daughter were attacked, I wouldn't blame the outfit she wore. I've been looking for crime stats but none of them seem to break down sexual assault by the level of scantiness the outfits the victim wore.

Perhaps because what a girl wears does not affect the outcome.

Do you think those Amish girls were wearing high heels and tatts and eyeliner and skimpy bikinis?

Your opinion is based on a world that NEVER existed. Your remembrance is faulty and incomplete. People didn't' talk of such things then, but they happened all the same. Oh and most kids that are sexually assaulted are not assaulted by strangers. The fact that stranger couldn't walk down your street when you were a kid didn't make you safer. Maybe it was out of neighborly concern, or perhaps, a product of their xenophobia.

Now, what neighborhoods can't you drive in unless you have the proper rims?

Tell us. What did you mean by that?

Magiver
10-22-2006, 11:12 PM
I live in a city that affords public transportation and owning a car is much more a luxury, one which I, can not afford. So you live in a self contained world. If you lived in a suburb you would be need a car and could easily afford it. My house payment 10 years ago was probably less than your apartment ($334). If you adjust for inflation it would be $500/month.

You are the one who has wandered off the track and you are the one that refuses to explain what you mean, leaving me to guess.

What did you mean by owning the right rims?

Explain it to me.

Come on.

It is your topic that you have thrust here, come come, be polite and explain what you ment by that. I'm not sure why you're fixating on rims but since you don't own a car I'll explain it to you. After-market rims tend to break out in distinct cost brackets. You can buy a really nice rim for $125 apiece. After that the price goes up rapidly so the $1,000 rims become the object of car jackings. Less than a mile from where I live someone was killed in a car-jacking of a car identical to mine.

If my daughter were attacked, I wouldn't blame the outfit she wore. I've been looking for crime stats but none of them seem to break down sexual assault by the level of scantiness the outfits the victim wore.

Perhaps because what a girl wears does not affect the outcome.

If your saying you don't advise your daughter on how to dress then I have no response for that other than Brooklyn must be a great place to live.

Your opinion is based on a world that NEVER existed. Your remembrance is faulty and incomplete. People didn't' talk of such things then, but they happened all the same. Oh and most kids that are sexually assaulted are not assaulted by strangers. The fact that stranger couldn't walk down your street when you were a kid didn't make you safer. Maybe it was out of neighborly concern, or perhaps, a product of their xenophobia. Really, so now you're calling my parents and neighbors names. Nice. We new every single neighbor on our block as did all my relatives. If I someone came up to me as a small child and started talking to me my neighbors would immediately introduce themselves. If you have a problem with that than I feel sorry for you.

Now, what neighborhoods can't you drive in unless you have the proper rims? Uh, all of them????? The more depressed the neighborhood the more likely you'll get jacked.

Zebra
10-22-2006, 11:59 PM
Yes, Brooklyn is a great place to live, though, self contained is not the first word that comes to mind.

Your boast, yes it was a boast, of the proximity of a lethal crime does not impress me. People have been killed around the corner from me. This does not make me tougher than you nor does it make me crazy to live here.

I never said I didn't advise my daughter on her dress, after all she is only theoretical, you did manage to ignore my question again.

I didn't call your parents and neighbors names. I am only left to speculate because you are unwilling to answer rather direct questions.

I'm fixating on the rims and the 'places you can't drive for safety reasons because you, after taking the rather huge hop from a girl on a runway wearing a rather skimpy bikini to girls being attacked by strangers and then amazed my even further by skipping to a love of the simple life of the 50's and then finally a jump to your fear of being carjacked. A fear that has grown considerably.

Why yesterday at 7:58 pm you said



By your logic I should be able to drive anywhere I want because that is my right to do so. There are places I will not drive to because it is dangerous to do so. I can increase the level of danger in such an area by:
- driving specific cars
- owning specific rims.
- driving at night


"places" where you can't, implies places where you can drive safely but barely 4 hours later

(in response to my question Now, what neighborhoods can't you drive in unless you have the proper rims?)

Uh, all of them????? The more depressed the neighborhood the more likely you'll get jacked.

My god man, by tomorrow night, you won't be able to leave the house!







I don't see how looking at a girl in a small bikini on a runway makes you think of child rape.

I don't see how talking about child rape, makes you long for the simpler, golden times of the 1950s.

I don't see how that leads you to talk about your fear of carjacking.

Every time I ask you to explain your thought process, you perform a highly imaginative leap to some other topic. If I try to stay on a topic, you wonder at my fixating.

But saying, If you don't get it you will never get it, you are in fact calling me stupid. Something, I feel for which, you owe me an apology.

I think this quote from you is most telling


You see a little girl that could have fallen out of a Norman Rockwell painting. I see a nice man who pulls up in a car and asks her for help looking for his lost puppy.

It is a nice, if depressing, paraphrase of a much more famous quote.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not? - RFK

Magiver
10-23-2006, 01:42 AM
Your boast, yes it was a boast, of the proximity of a lethal crime does not impress me. People have been killed around the corner from me. This does not make me tougher than you nor does it make me crazy to live here.I'm boasting that I live near crime? HAAHAHAHAHAHAH. Oh man, tears of laughter on that one. I pointed out the reality of life in the big city (well, a small city to you). Every city has high pockets of crime and my city is no exception.

I didn't call your parents and neighbors names. I am only left to speculate because you are unwilling to answer rather direct questions. You're quote: Maybe it was out of neighborly concern, or perhaps, a product of their xenophobia.

I'm fixating on the rims and the 'places you can't drive for safety reasons because you, after taking the rather huge hop from a girl on a runway wearing a rather skimpy bikini to girls being attacked by strangers and then amazed my even further by skipping to a love of the simple life of the 50's and then finally a jump to your fear of being carjacked. A fear that has grown considerably.

[QUOTE=Zebra]"places" where you can't, implies places where you can drive safely but barely 4 hours later

(in response to my question Now, what neighborhoods can't you drive in unless you have the proper rims?)

My god man, by tomorrow night, you won't be able to leave the house! And yet again with the rims. It was a simple point to make that you use common sense in dealing with the hazards of life. But you are right to assume I don't have expensive rims on my cars and never will.

I don't see how looking at a girl in a small bikini on a runway makes you think of child rape. [/QUOTE No, you don't. That's the divider on responses to the topic.

[QUOTE=Zebra]Every time I ask you to explain your thought process, you perform a highly imaginative leap to some other topic. If I try to stay on a topic, you wonder at my fixating.

But saying, If you don't get it you will never get it, you are in fact calling me stupid. Something, I feel for which, you owe me an apology. Your topic is a fascination with rims. If you have an actual point I've lost it in this exchange. You've admitted that you would advise your theoretical daughter on matters of dress yet you can't make the link that a child wearing the skimpiest of bikinis would be more likely to attract the attention of a pedophile. This was the topic of discussion and my analogy was directed at it. That's what analogies do. This is a pointless exchange. You don't have to agree with my point to understand it. This concludes my discussion of rims, cars, buses or other wheel related topics. Good night to you and any theoretical children you may have.

DiosaBellissima
10-23-2006, 02:11 AM
Riddle me this: have we considered the possibility that this was a social statement?

Now, we can debate until we're blue in the face about whether or not it is ok to make a child a pawn in the beauty game, but I think this may be a possibility.

For one thing, the article says that there was ONE child in a bikini among the adult models. The child was clearly sexualized in that she was wearing a low slung, string bikini.

But perhas this designer was just trying to make a statement, a la Jean Paul Gaultier. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408463&in_page_id=1770) Much like Gaultier using a heavily obese woman as a statement against (or perhaps for, that's all still being debated) the ultra thin look of late, perhaps this designer was going for a similar point. Our models nowadays do tend to bear a striking resemblance to sexualized little girls.


Just my thoughts.

Zebra
10-23-2006, 08:51 AM
Your topic is a fascination with rims. If you have an actual point I've lost it in this exchange. You've admitted that you would advise your theoretical daughter on matters of dress yet you can't make the link that a child wearing the skimpiest of bikinis would be more likely to attract the attention of a pedophile. This was the topic of discussion and my analogy was directed at it. That's what analogies do. This is a pointless exchange. You don't have to agree with my point to understand it. This concludes my discussion of rims, cars, buses or other wheel related topics. Good night to you and any theoretical children you may have.


No, I can't make the link, and you can't make the link, because there is no link to be made. If you can make that link, using something like say, data, and not an analogy to car rims or anything else, please do so.


Please show me some DATA where what the girl wears, makes her more likely to be attacked.

gigi
10-23-2006, 10:44 AM
A 10 year old girl has no concept of sexuality and therefore would not have to deal with a pedophile who in turn would have no interest in a child wearing almost no clothing at all.Are you serious? I had my period at 11 and my one of my friends did at 10, and girls are giving blow jobs and getting pregnant not long after that. Kids molested at 10 and less have some idea about sexuality. I don't mean to be raving about this, but middle school girls are certainly not ignorant about sex and are starting to think about their sexuality. They aren't fully developed about it but to say they have no concept?

How many 'runway' shows have you been to? As I have said, many times, they are not sexual. They are not about the models. The top runway models, you don't know their names. Those events are not about the models, they are about clothing. CLOTHING.But in the case of swimsuit and lingerie, isn't how sexy the clothes look part of the package?

Magiver
10-23-2006, 11:01 AM
No, I can't make the link, and you can't make the link, because there is no link to be made. If you can make that link, using something like say, data, and not an analogy to car rims or anything else, please do so.


Please show me some DATA where what the girl wears, makes her more likely to be attacked. We're not in Great Debates - this is In My Opinion and I've stated mine. I don't understand pedophilia but I know it exists. If a bikini on an adult woman is considered sexy then a bikini that is exceptionally small would be considered racier. I can't link the sexuality of a bathing suit to what a pedophile looks for. But putting it on a child who would not recognize the danger of a pedophile seems like a bad idea to me. I don't know if you watch 20/20 but they did a show years ago about how easy it was to lure small children away. These were kids who were specifically trained not to talk to strangers. They used the "can you help me find my lost puppy" line and it worked almost every time. It scared the crap out of me.

We're on opposite sides of the issue and we have become unnecessarily combative over it and for that I apologize. Not my intentions. I'm off to enjoy the day with friends and I hope you do the same.

Aangelica
10-23-2006, 01:25 PM
To answer the OP: neither.

Tacky and the judgement involved is exceptionally questionable.

If my (currently theoretical) daughter or any of my prepubescent female relatives were wearing such an outfit, a change of clothing would be in order.

First, it doesn't fit properly. My first thought when I saw that picture was "Time to buy a new bathing suit, Mom".

Second, a girl that age should definitely be wearing more clothing in a public place. Naked is perfectly acceptable when you're toddler-age, but as a child grows into school-age, appropriate covering is indicated.

Third, a micro-sized string bikini such as the one pictured is a sexualized garment - regardless of who happens to be sporting it. It's no more appropriate for a child of that age to be wearing a bikini cut like that one than it would be for her to be wearing a black lace bustier with thigh-high spike heels. Both outfits are inappropriate for a 10-year-old. Not because I'm a pervert, but because do-me shoes and sexy lingerie don't belong on a kid - and neither do string micro-bikinis.

And don't even kid yourself that a girl that age doesn't have any indication of sex and sexuality - she might not have the whole picture, but unless she's been living under a rock, she's got more of an idea than one might think. For Pete's sake, at 10 many girls have started their period already - or are getting damn close. There's nothing wrong with that actually - information is a valuable thing.

Clothahump
10-23-2006, 05:14 PM
The bikini in question is tasteless as all hell. It was obviously chosen for its "sexy" qualities.

If you look carefully at the picture of the young lady, you can see the tan line where her regular swimsuit goes. That is far more appropriate for her.

Philster
10-23-2006, 05:52 PM
In the real world, where we all live an operate, this tickles the perversions of people who are into such things, and does nothing else for anyone else.

I wouldn't dress my kid that way, but I wouldn't tell someone else they could not. IMHO, that is an important distinction. What is does for me, though, is remind me that someone who is turned on by prepubescent girls is excited that this is going on -- for whatever that's worth -- and to what advantage is that to the rest of us?

I can't even make any sense. I guess I am saying, "Nothing good can come from this."

Rilchiam
10-24-2006, 03:41 AM
She has no breasts.

She has no pubic hair.

When she starts developing those things, that's the time to cover up. If she can run in that bikini without falling out of it, it's okay for her to wear it. She'll have plenty of time to learn to be ashamed of her body. Let her enjoy her youth.

gigi
10-24-2006, 08:13 AM
But maybe that's the point. She's not enjoying her youth by being oblivious to her body. She's being put in a sexualized garment (thanks Aangelica) and strutting in a way that calls attention to her body. And maybe it's too early for that.

fessie
10-24-2006, 08:29 AM
She has no breasts.

She has no pubic hair.

When she starts developing those things, that's the time to cover up. If she can run in that bikini without falling out of it, it's okay for her to wear it. She'll have plenty of time to learn to be ashamed of her body. Let her enjoy her youth.

Her choosing to wear it on a beach isn't the primary issue (although no kid of MINE would be given the option). It's the adults who put her on a catwalk, in an adult woman's clothing, for everyone's viewing pleasure, who are exploiting the child. She's too young to give consent.

Aangelica
10-24-2006, 11:58 AM
But maybe that's the point. She's not enjoying her youth by being oblivious to her body. She's being put in a sexualized garment (thanks Aangelica) and strutting in a way that calls attention to her body. And maybe it's too early for that.

Anytime :)

She's probably having a hell of a time. I mean, seriously. She gets to play dress up with adult clothing and show off with models and get all that attention! That's an outgoing girl's dream! My oldest niece would be beside herself with excitement if she were in that position. Hence, the reason why adults get to be the judge of what's appropriate attire for minor children.

The outfit still isn't appropriate public attire for a person that age though. I'd be almost as filled with :rolleyes: if the outfit were do-me heels and a merry widow. In other words, it's the outfit itself I have a quibble with. If it were a kid that age wearing an age-appropriate bikini, then I'd have no comment.

control-z
10-24-2006, 12:45 PM
Way too small. Senseless. No good can come from it.

looking busy
10-24-2006, 08:51 PM
Are you serious? I had my period at 11 and my one of my friends did at 10, and girls are giving blow jobs and getting pregnant not long after that. Kids molested at 10 and less have some idea about sexuality. I don't mean to be raving about this, but middle school girls are certainly not ignorant about sex and are starting to think about their sexuality. They aren't fully developed about it but to say they have no concept?

But in the case of swimsuit and lingerie, isn't how sexy the clothes look part of the package?

Gigi,

I think that is the whole problem, if you (generic you, not you specifically) make children "sexual" by the clothes they wear, they will certainly pick up on that and behave sexually at an inappropriately young age. The bikini in the picture is designed to be sexual - it is alike a mirror image of something you would see on Baywatch. A girl that age should not be wearing clothes that are primarily sexual, she will pick up on the attitude when she is way to young to be dealing with such issues.

I have a two year old, and I will be teaching her about sex at a very young age - as knowledge is power, but I won't allow her to "dress sexily" until she is ready for the image she is projectinig and the reactions she is trying to elicit. IOW, i don't want her "looking sexy" until she is ready to HAVE sex. That is not to say I don't want her to look good and feel confident, but this doesn't require her to look sexy.

By dressing the girl in the photo in a bikini that is primarily sexual (as opposed to functional) she, or rather the person that chose the clothes, is trying to elicit a sexual response - and that is unhealthy for the girl.

And for what its worth, I would not avoid such a bikini for a fear of child molesters or what others think, but it is because I don't want her to think of herself as a "sexual object" which is what will happen when she wears clothes designed to elicit a sexual response, or make her look sexy.

Diceman
10-24-2006, 10:55 PM
Definitely sexual. That's a string bikini she's wearing. It is designed specifically to draw attention to the genitals and butt. (I don't expect that the suit is any more modest in back.) Basically, she's a pre-pubescent girl, wearing clothing that adult women wear when they want to give guys boners. And that's just creepy.

Sleel
10-25-2006, 12:44 AM
Oh gee, could this be a publicity stunt?

This constant scrutiny for "child porn" is bloody ridiculous. I don't believe for a second that pedophiles are on the increase or that the few that exist pose any appreciable danger to children. It's all part and parcel of the danger-mongering that has taken over what pitiful excuse for news still existed.

I didn't grow up in the idealized '50s, I grew up in a high-crime medium-sized city in the '70s and '80s. Crime rates are lower now than they've been in close to 50 years and they peaked about the time I was hitting middle-school age. If people should have worried about their kids, they should have then. Know what? Parents did worry a bit, but the actual danger was so slight that elaborate precautions and witch hunts never even got serious consideration. There were far more nice and helpful people in neighborhoods then than there were violent an abusive ones. That is even more likely to be true now.

It's stupid to look for pedophiles behind every tree. If you adopt a skewed viewpoint of the world, you shouldn't be surprised if the world conforms to your expectations. Your interpretation rules your experience. That's one of the reasons why 5 eyewitnesses can see 6 different things, some of which aren't even supported by objective reality.

The sexualization going on here is through the eyes of the beholder. I'm not a pervert so I don't see this as being sexual. Silly, yes, sexual, no. Besides, the girl's obviously having a great time. Who's being harmed here? I see no victims, just people itching to create one.

What's next, telling women that they may have been raped and they didn't even know it? Oh, wait, that's happened too. And it's a bunch of crap.

fessie
10-25-2006, 07:42 AM
It's not about pedophiles, Sleel - they're turned on by kids no matter WHAT they're wearing. Has nothing to do with sickos (except for giving them one more kid to stare at, by virtue of publishing).

It's about using provocative clothing to turn a child into an object of desire for (normal, not pedophilic) adult men. And it's also about context, about a child being put on a catwalk in sexy clothes designed for adult women.


But I do agree with you, a lot of parents are excessively hypervigilant these days.

Nava
10-25-2006, 07:59 AM
Maybe I haven't been to the beach enough lately, but are little girls suit bottoms usually cut that low across the bikini line these days? It looks like a grown woman's sexy low cut bikini on a little girl.

They were that low when I last wore bottom-only... uh... 27 years ago.

What I don't get is tit-covers for the tit-less.

Sleel
10-25-2006, 09:05 PM
It's not about pedophiles, Sleel - they're turned on by kids no matter WHAT they're wearing. Has nothing to do with sickos (except for giving them one more kid to stare at, by virtue of publishing).

I agree with this. That's why I don't understand why so many people feel the need to drag the Porno for Pedos schtick out every time something like this comes up.

It's about using provocative clothing to turn a child into an object of desire for (normal, not pedophilic) adult men. And it's also about context, about a child being put on a catwalk in sexy clothes designed for adult women.

There's no clothing, no makeup, nothing you could do short of creating facsimiles of secondary sexual characteristics that would make a child attractive to a guy who didn't already have pedophilic tendencies. The designer did it to make a point, he wanted to shock people a little. He succeeded.

This stunt is worthy of comment for those reasons, but the equating it to "child porn" crap really needs to stop. No matter what the context, it's not porn and it's not sexual. It's about testing the limits of societal approval, nothing more.

fessie
10-25-2006, 09:26 PM
There's no clothing, no makeup, nothing you could do short of creating facsimiles of secondary sexual characteristics that would make a child attractive to a guy who didn't already have pedophilic tendencies. The designer did it to make a point, he wanted to shock people a little. He succeeded.

Hmm, you've raised an interesting point --- because a lot of models seem to lack secondary sexual characteristics. In fact, women are given the message that that's what men want. No hips, no boobs, no body hair.

Make that kid a bit taller and she looks like a lot of models out there.

Sleel
10-26-2006, 03:27 AM
Hmm, you've raised an interesting point --- because a lot of models seem to lack secondary sexual characteristics. In fact, women are given the message that that's what men want. No hips, no boobs, no body hair.

Make that kid a bit taller and she looks like a lot of models out there.

See, that's another problem. Women think that men want women who look like runway models. We don't.

Apparently, several studies have shown that women consistently rate much thinner body shapes as appealing to men than the body shapes that men actually choose as being sexy. We want women who look like lingerie or swimsuit models; fit women with boobs, round thighs, hips, and bubble butts. There's a fundamental disconnect between what women think men find sexy and what men actually want. Bony, rail-thin, anorexic, chain-smoking waifs with cheekbones that can carve roasts do nothing for most guys. Believe me, almost nothing in the fashion world has any appeal for most men.

Take a look at who makes the list of most sexy women in men's magazines, like Maxim. Hint: you won't find a lot of skinny bony chicks there.

Zebra
10-26-2006, 11:11 PM
But clothes flow so much better on the rail thin women that work the catwalk. That is why designers hire them.

Viridiana
10-27-2006, 06:49 PM
I remember being a little girl, and specifically being aware of sexuality by 7 at the absolute latest (I have a bad earlier memory). I read a textbook on it at 8 to get clear on things.
I wasn't thinking of how to make myself sexually attractive to men at that point, of course, but I was conscious of my body. I didn't want to be "sexy", though I had an idea of what it was, but I remember a vague sense of contentment at having a flat stomach, for instance, after looking at various 'examples' of beauty. And I was certainly dismayed if I noticed my undies showed or if I could see my nipples through my shirt, I just didn't tell an adult about it. Not all children are blissfully unaware of such things. I assume many pick up on more than they let on.
Even if the model is unaware of any of this (and probably, she is, since it's an isolated event), the issue for me doesn't really concern her, just the designer (to a point, sure, it is just about the clothing). Why choose deliberate skimpiness as the aspect of modern women's fashion to translate for children's wear? It is deliberate - it's not like there's a huge concern over fabric efficiency or mobility displayed here. Little kids can run around totally naked at the beach if their clothes get in the way (even kids that are aware, if all the other kids are comfortably doing it) and their parents let them. There's no reason to just barely cover the areola/buttcrack/pubic mound as opposed to doing a normal bikini cut, even. It's more likely to fall off than to allow ease of movement. So what would the reason be? It's not simple ignorance of appropriateness. A runway caliber designer doesn't live in a cave. What's good about it? Why go there? To make the statement "Ha ha, pedophiles and the media! Look at me flipping you off!"? And regardless of whether this particular designer is making some kind of "genius" artistic statement, would one really expect everyone to pick up on that and not perpetuate this sort of thing?

It's not child porn. But it is an issue.

btw, I don't know any women who think men want them to look like rail-thin couture models. They *know* men want them to look like underwear models, if they're thinking about such things at all.