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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
Uh, all of them??? The more depressed the neighborhood the more likely you’ll get jacked.
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
“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!
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
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
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.
You’re quote: Maybe it was out of neighborly concern, or perhaps, a product of their xenophobia.
[QUOTE=Zebra]
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.
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.
[QUOTE=Zebra]
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.