Self Expression v. Some F'ing Common Sense

[JanMichael]

Poll question: Self Expression v. Some F'ing Common Sense

Should 9 year old GIRLS be allowed to wear tube tops to school that say, in so many words, "FUCK ME, THANKS" or "I'm a Fuck Toy!"?????

This is aimed at the "tweeners and their whorish clothes" debate....

Oh, and for those that think that I'm a fundy christian, WRONG:-)

[mahina]

1. Your headline is right on.

Anyone who thinks a 9 year old child wearing a tube top is asking for sex is one sick pup.

[LiberalVoice]

2. Yes! I think that elementary school slutting is GRAND!

I voted for that only because I'll probably never see that option in a poll ever again in my life.

First off I just want to say that the type of clothing you're talking about has nothing to do with self expression, and everything to do with purposly wearing clothing you've seen other people, more popular people, wearing. Unless of course "Self Expression" is still being coined as being able to wear those short skirts all the pretty girls are wearing.

One of the only times I've ever looked at someone like they were a complete idiot(Other then people that support Bush)was when a girl in my High School was getting angry over the fact that in Philly it became mandatory to wear a uniform to school. Now, just so you know, I went to the ghettoist school in philly. She said, "We shouldn't be forced to wear uniforms to school. I wanna wear my Guess jeans and Timberlands to school." I then turned to her and said something to the effect of, "You mean your other uniform?"

[JanMichael]

3. That's one of the things that I LOVE most about the WWW.

Crazy assed sentances that just freak-out the average viewer...Or make their minds go "Hmmmm?????"

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

4. Forgive them...

For they know not what they toy with.

On the other hand, someone needs to slap the nits off their parents heads with an old sneaker.

Be advised: I think sex is wonderful, at least what I can remember of it. That said, some of the gear I see little girls(and that IS what they are...) traipsing around in gives me a case of The Bad Jujus.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. The benefit of sexualizing children

When they're old enough to actually be sexual, they'll be immune to all the bullshit our society demands they buy into.

Let's just have none of that funny business with 'em, now ...

--bkl

[Nay]

24. Immune? You've got to be kidding.

They will be total converts to the idea that they are walking billboards for whatever the corporatrions want to sell next. And that being walking billboards is wonderful, just wonderful.

[Dogmudgeon]

28. They WILL BE?

Alas, "they are" is the reality of the thing.

My post was half tongue-in-cheek, but teaching children a sense of self-posession early is as much as can be done to make them resistant to being pimped by big business. Without that sense of autonomy (the Conservatives call it "sovereignty"), they'll be victimized by any identity peddler that comes along.

--bkl

[Alenne]

6. I don't know what kind of schools other people's kids go to

but at my children's schools if it's strapless it isn't allowed. And I'm sure they have a rule against sexually explicit shirts.

[manic expression]

7. Whoever thinks that

wearing less clothes is self expression needs to stop watching pop culture and read a book.

[LiberalVoice]

9. Exactly!

Now, give me back my avatar!

[blondeatlast]

47. Well said, indeed. nt

[Selwynn]

59. hear hear!!

[Kanary]

8. Anyone remember Jon Benet?

Just thought I'd ask.

[Deja Q]

45. Obviously, some capitalists aren't...

They happily made those disgusting outfits.

[necso]

10. Sorry, I couldn't resist!

Better count my vote as "No".

You were talking about a beer bong, weren't you?

[wuushew]

11. I would allow nudists in school if possible

anything that limits freedom of expression is a threat to liberty and democracy. The slippery slope that guides sexual expression ultimately infringes on on political free speech(no "fuck Bush", "Cheney that", etc.). As long as any individuals actions do not constitute a physical threat to another person the maximum liberty possible should be allowed. Provocative clothing is not considerate to those who might be distracted, but is not the physical/legal authority to do so even more irksome? Do those who are justifying clothing bans from public safety standpoints can you OBJECTIVELY sight the risk factors to children above and beyond those present in our society's embrace and love of automobiles, guns, etc?

Given that in our society parents are able to choose from a wide range of environmental threats that people expose their children to, why is this topic more heinous? Given that we are all mortal creatures all individuals should be able to choose the amount of risk/freedom that experience in life. No politically correct person on this board would subscribe to the notion that women who dress slutty are responsible for being raped. How is it different with pedophilia? The urges expressed by such individuals are not caused by the external clothing of children but rather signals from with in their own minds. In any case as long it is not your kid who are we do say what is or is not appropriate parenting?

[manic expression]

13. I think you're right

but what you can't forget is that young kids who do this are probably doing it not under their own expression, but most kids dress "scantily" (which is what this topic was about) because they see their shallow idols do it and try to emulate that behavior. I do not object, at all, to self expression, no matter what the medium may be (I actually encourage it). However, that expression MUST come from the individual and only the individual. It is a really bad sign when people (especially the younger ages) mold their personalities to completely conform to a desired appearance. This destroys any sense of self in an individual, which is one of the most important aspects of existence. When people become themselves, the negative effects of a group (conformity, group-thinking, etc...) will melt away.
Expression must come from the individual.

[wuushew]

16. Our society's problem is determining when children are adult enough

Apparently one can be 14-16 years old to have sex, 18 to die for your country, and 21 to drink the "demon" alcohol.

By middle school I would think most children would have the mental rationality to deal with a variety of decisions. I do agree with all your above post.

[manic expression]

19. I think that, in the best situation

children should be treated like adults from the lowest possible age. It is proven that a younger mind learns faster and more efficiently than their adult counterparts. All that's needed is to give respect, responsibility and knowledge to everyone at every age and the effects will be immeasurable.

[mark414]

29. dave chappelle had a great observation on this subject

in his latest stand up special on showtime.

it's a bit vulgar, but right on the money.

i suggest you and all DU'ers check it out.

[LanternWaste]

43. Hmmm...

Does that mean you believe that by middle-school, children should be allowed to have legal, consensual sex and that the statutory rape age should be lowered to twelve or thirteen?

Before you reply with the, "Where did I say THAT?", let me add that you didn't. I inferred it from your post. So if the decision to allow consensual sex isn't part and parcel of "a variety of decisions" that a middler-schooler can make, it's my mistake.

:)

[blondeatlast]

48. I was going to respond but you said it perfectly. nt

[TahitiNut]

12. It's not self-expression anymore than wearing a sandwich board is.

This is done primarily for the prurient interests of adults. Adults that're parents and use their children for amusement and adults that're pandering to such interests by selling the goods in the first place.

Altogether too much of the manipulation of children is for the amusement or political agenda of exploitative adults. It comes as absolutely no surprise to me that child abuse infests our institutions at the highest levels.

[Bread and Circus]

14. I have two very young daughters....does this shit really exist?

I couldn't imagine that t-shirts/tube tops with that exact message in any widespread use.

If it's true, then I think that's fucking sad.

However, I think I misread your post. Ultimately, what you read into the tube tops is probably a little more explicit than what I would probably read into them. I think the girls are probably wanting attention but not really sexual attention. They shouldn't have to wear shit like that. Their parents should empower them to get respect and attention in better ways.

[JanMichael]

15. "in so many words"

I used to think that (Ie. the english language) meant something...

[Bread and Circus]

18. Yeah, I missed that "in so many words" part the first read thru...

I edited my post to clarify...hope it helped.

[JanMichael]

20. It did, does, sorry I was snarky.

It's late, I'm judgemental, drunk, and not very articulate....

Good night!

[LWolf]

25. Here are some that really exist:

All seen on pre-pubescent girls. At my school, in real time, with my own eyes.

Across the chest: "Sexy" and/or pics of cherries in nipple position.

Across the seat: "Bootylicious"

[tblue37]

40. In another thread on this same topic,

people describe finding lots of clothes for young girls that have pictures of cherries or the words "Boy Toy" on the front. I would say that comes pretty close to being as explicit as this thread's heading suggests.

[blondeatlast]

49. But the point is; do the girls know the difference?

Do they have the mental maturity to make the distinction?

I remember being that age and I know I wouldn't have. My mom refused to let me wear some clothes and now I'm glad she did.

I might add, I have impeccable taste, thanks to Mom. :evilgrin:

[veluthukaran]

17. no

no

[newyawker99]

26. Hi veluthukaran!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[blondeatlast]

51. Bye, veluthukaran! nt

[blondeatlast]

50. Keep those brilliant posts coming; you'll be able to start a thread soon.

:evilgrin:

[Nimrod]

21. Question

I saw three girls ranging from about 6-11 or so just two days ago. They were playing in their yard IN PUBLIC wearing swimsuits. Not just that, but two of them were bikinis. I mean, that's not a lot of clothing there, and that's not even in school that's out where ANY pedophile can get a good look at them.

Well? Thoughts? Should nine year old girls not be allowed to wear swimsuits? Maybe they just shouldn't be allowed to wear bikinis? Or maybe we should make NEW swimsuits for preteens fashioned after those old fifties ones.

Or maybe, just MAYBE, we should leave just a teensy bit of responsibility for parenting to... oh, let's say the parents just to be weird.

[JanMichael]

22. Obviously, no really, you think that's a valid comparison?

School v. Pool?

Please. It's apples v. bananas:-)

[Nimrod]

23. As a matter of fact I do

Like I said, two of the girls were wearing bikinis. There's NO reason for a preteen to wear a bikini is there? That's very revealing and a one-piece would do just fine, right? So should preteen-sized bikinis be disallowed? Once we're onto the one pieces, we have to realize those come very high up in the crotch, so maybe adding a few more inches in length would be in order.

For that matter, how about short-shorts? I've seen some pretty damn short pants on young girls. Once again, maybe a minimum length is in order here. They don't have to have to wear those super-short women's running shorts, mid-thigh is perfectly adequate to allow for unrestricted movement and temperature control, right?

I'm just looking for consistency here. Pick a stance and stick to it. Once you set a precedent you have to expect to go the distance.

[Selwynn]

60. Pulp fiction said it best....

"It aint the same mutherfucking ballpark, it aint even the same fuckin sport!"

[Selwynn]

61. Dude, sorry - but context matters in life.

Guess what, in life context matters. Things are not all or nothing. You're "once you set a precedent you have to expect to go the distance" is a logical fallacy called the slippery slope fallacy. Some things can be right in one context and not right in another context, depending on the nature of the situation.

I know that lots of people want dogma and universal absolutes so that they don't have to use their brains and think. Hell, the entire republican party is made up of people like that. However, in the real world making judgments about what is appropriate and what isn't is a matter of context.

Wearing a swimsuit in a pool is one context. Weaning a swimsuit (for example) in school would be another context. One place it would probably be appropriate, the other it would not. As far as short shorts, etc goes - parents should be responsible for the decency of their young children's dress. And that dress should have some degree of modesty associated with it, because that's basic common fucking sense.

However, what we were talking about is school - and in school, a public institution, rules have to be set that are in the interest of all the people required to be there, and a balance has to be struck between personal "expression" and infringement on other people's comfort. For a public place to establish a dress code is not only fine - its normal and happens most places. There are times where I support the ACLU in its defense of kids first amendment rights in school. But its not because its an all or nothing thing. There needs to be a balance between public decency and the first amendment, and I agree with the earlier poster, people who think simply wearing less clothes counts as "expression" need to get dressed and read a fucking book.

[blondeatlast]

52. More like apples vs. beefsteaks.

:eyes:

[topanga]

27. And I guess the way a woman dresses is why she gets raped?

The fucked up male mysogeny of this thread is amazing.

If you get hard looking at a little 9 year old girl in a tube top, you ought to cut your junk off and keep it in your pocket, you are much more dangerous than any message on a little girls shirt.

[JanMichael]

30. Oh for fucks sake! Is common sense DEAD here? This is like the idiots...

...who dig those 'beauty' pagents for kids like Jon Bent ramsey, it's f'ing SICK.

How do you leap from my point to mysogyny anyway?

And no, I don't get hard when I see a 9 year old in hooker trash clothing, I do however wonder about the mental stablity of the ignorant parent that bought those clothes in the first place.

[topanga]

31. What a woman wears...

Is not indicative at all of her promiscuity, you, by saying it is, are proving that you fell it is oalright (or at least understandable) when a little 9 year old girl gets raped for wearing a tube top.

In my book that is mysogeny.

[Misinformed01]

33. Please see my post below

and then head over to the local little slut store and see if you can get your kids some really trashy school outfits.

By the way, when your kids come home after being sexually harrassed...and you want to know "what is wrong with this society" you only have to look so far to find a mirror.

[Cheswick2.0]

37. I am sorry but janMichael is not a mysogenist

not based on this thread anyway and not in any other post I have seen. Allowing little girls to dress in sexually suggestive clothing is not about the males inability to control himself..he must, that goes without saying.
The point is that when you dress a girl like this you are telling her what and who she is, a sexual object. Childhood is short enough.

[Misinformed01]

32. Hey Topanga

I have been reading some of your posts today...bored, and decided to hang out on a political website? Nothing else to do on a Labor Day Weekend, eh-

That's OK though, because with lots of practice reading websites, you should be able to improve your comprehension skills--bonus! Now, go back and re-read the original post, and tell me how you think the poster is a sick misogynist-and hey, good luck with that! Reading is a great hobby!

Stephanie

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Is this question of any importance whatsoever?

I'd put it up there with "Should children eat dirt?"

If parents don't want their kids doing something, then start parenting and quit whining.

"As international attention is riveted by fears over Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), an older and far more deadly disease quietly ravages Africa: malaria. Malaria kills more than a million people worldwide each year—90 percent of them in Africa; 70 percent children under the age of five."

"Malnutrition contributes to nearly SEVEN MILLION CHILD DEATHS every year -- more than any infectious disease, war or natural disaster, according to the 1998 State of the World's Children Report released by UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund" (emphasis mine)

I wonder how many of their parents were worried about which designer labeled, made in Guatamala (or, some other 3rd world country being raped by our corporations), they were wearing when they died.

Just trying to put a bit of perspective on the "debate".

[Misinformed01]

35. Hunger and poverty put "perspective" on all debates

However, it doesn't make Michael's question any less valid. He thinks parents who dress their kids like little tramps are dipshits...this has nothing to do with globalization, and everything to do with taste, and good sense.

Stephanie

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Soooo...who do you think produces the slut outfits?

If alleged parents are stupid enough to buy into the competition for whose kid is dressed the most "cool" because of being brainwashed into the consumerism by the corporations, and deck their spoiled little darlings out as whores, well good luck to them.

I would certainly agree that such "parents" are dipshits beyond redemption, but whether little Kimmi or Boopsie wear tube tops or pinafores is kind of low on the list of things to be concerned about in the world.

[Misinformed01]

38. Then by all means, don't stoop to reading anymore

of this thread, since the topic is obviously below your intellectual standards for reading material on world problems.

Or! Use your reading comprehension skills and use that handy dandy "ignore thread" feature that Skinner, EarlG. and Elad have seen fit to bestow upon us so that the loftier members of DU do not have to suffer such "literary" atrocities.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Oooh, but it's so much fun to irritate people so concerned about nothing.

You don't want your kids to buy trash, don't give them the money to do so.

Nothing particularly literary, or difficult, about that.

But, I wish you well with the Oprah's Important Issues of the Day.

[Selwynn]

62. Put another way, oooh its so much fun to act like a total dick.

[tblue37]

41. I'm sorry,

but this post reminds me of what Saddam Hussein said when offered the chance to use the bathroom after being taken prisoner: "How can I go to the bathroom when my people are enslaved?"

Just because people are dying of malaria in Africa, that doesn't mean that it is reasonable to dress little girls like whores. In fact, it isn't even relevant. The fact that one problem is terrible doesn't mean that we must not think about or discuss any other topics, just because they are less terrible.

On my Who's Minding the Children website I have an essay on the subject of dressing little girls as sex objects:

"Tot Tarts"
http://www.childrensneeds.homestead.com/tottarts.html

[NashVegas]

42. Dress Like Whores?

Yes, I would say the mysogyny in this thread abounds.

How do whores dress, exactly? Is it in the shirt, or in the shoes? (Oh, how I well remember 11th grade when we all wore Candies. "Slut shoes," we called them.)

The best, sexiest men (het and gay, both) I've ever known all enjoy the sight of a woman who was confident enough in her body to show it off a little in their clothes. And they know the difference between just looking and jumping over boundaries.

Maybe the parenting that's needed is for dads to explain that difference to their sons, just as much as what any mother allows her daughter to purchase with the family credit card.

[Misinformed01]

46. This post is not about how WOMEN dress

It's about 11 year old (or so) girls that wear sexually suggestive clothing.

Why would you call an adult male who is concerned about children's clothing a "misogynist?" I am really curious about this one-

[NashVegas]

53. I Wouldn't Be So Sure

Hit your mental rewind button back to 1976 or so and you may well recall the halter-top, worn by fully grown women and little girls alike. Same deal with the tube top. This is nothing new.

Why would you call an adult male who is concerned about children's clothing a "misogynist?"

Concern is one thing; saying an 11 year old is 'dressed like a whore' is something else, and it indicates, IMO, that the person saying it is far less equipped to deal with female sexuality than the kid in the shirt, and projecting their hang-ups onto the kid.

[Misinformed01]

54. About the "misogynist" thing:

The poster in question is my husband; I can promise you that he is not hung up on children---and if you don't think that those little Jon Benet types aren't dressed like little whores, then I suggest that you don't know what a whore dresses like...or you have extrememly bad taste.

Stephanie

[NashVegas]

56. Please Revisit

My first post in this thread. Please revisit the post I responded to.

Is your husband's name "Tina?"

Either way I stand by my statement. Don't imagine for even a minute there isn't at least one segment of the kids in question who see the adults freaking out and are loving every minute of it. When you start throwing words like "whore," etc., around, it says far more about you and your attitudes than it will ever say about your target.

And no, I don't know how whores dress, it's not exactly something I obsess over.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

58. Amen, Stephanie

:thumbsup:

[SarahB]

44. My first thought is "Where's their parents?"

I have a daughter who is 12 and she's actually a bit taller than me. She looks older and now she's starting to fill out too which hopefully won't be quite as much as her mom did by 13. Anyway, we have very frank talks about what is and isn't appropriate for her age and I wouldn't allow this type of clothing, but she has the information and confidence to not have to wear something like this for attention. She's smart enough to realize it's negative attention.

I'm sure that, if she's like most of us, she's going to end up sexually active eventually (hopefully no sooner than 5 or 6 years from now when she's 18, but I know once she's in her late teens, even 16 or 17, I'll have less control, so I have to realistically face other possibilities could happen) and I want her to make good decisions about it when the time comes with confidence and knowledge. I want her to be empowered. Using terms like "whore and slut" when describing a women's sexuality is not empowering, so I wouldn't use them around her. I would rather say "inappropriate" or "too much of a sexual message for your age".
Now, I'm sure you're an enlightened guy, as are most people here, but language is a very powerful thing and our culture already give such mixed messages- overt sexuality on one hand and "sex is wrong" on the other. I think there needs to be a healthy balance to let our children both boys and girls, as they get older, understand that sex is something healthy, natural, and enjoyable, but it is for adults and we have to be responsible regarding our sexuality at the same time both on physical and emotional levels.

[Renew Deal]

55. Of course!!! It's their constitutional right to whore it up.

;) Just kidding. Of course not. Parents and schools shouldn't allow it either. It's amazing how quickly these kids are growing up these days. I am 28 so it still wasn't that long ago when I was in high school and I can't believe the change.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

57. Read my reply...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2310386&mesg_id=2315137

It's not about them just putting out tank tops and tube tops. It's THE WORDS WRITTEN ON THEM that make them inappropriate for little pre-teen girls to wear. These girls aren't mature enough to deal with the attention that comes with wearing clothes like that. It isn't a debate about self-expression at all. Some of these girls don't even know the image they project when they wear these clothes.

So I don't think it's unreasonable to be peturbed by clothing selections that say stuff like "pluck my cherry" and stuff like that. Girls aren't ready for the consequences that come from wearing their older sister's clothes. That's all there is to it.