Style and Children

CM · Post by CM » Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:05 am

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/ ... 792567.htm

For several years running, American teen fashion has tended toward the tighter and more revealing, thrusting parents into the age-old ``you're-not-going-out-looking-like-that'' tussle with their daughters. Increasingly, some of those standoffs are with girls as young as 11 or 12.

That basically covers the topic of the link. My question is how old does a girl - the article concerns only females - have to be to be able to wear clothes described in the article. I come from a conservative background, so honestly i have no clue what to say. I think they should be allowed within reason...but what is within reason?

smass · Post by **smass** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:24 am

I have two daughters - ages 2 and 5 - so I have a ways to go before the magic age of 12. Fashion has a way of changing dramatically in a short period of time so I am holding out hope for the return of the amish look.

Interestingly - my wife has been shopping for my 5 year old who starts kindergarten tommorrow - and she can't believe that the majority of clothes for a 5 year old are nothing short of "slutty" - for a 5 year old for cripes sake! Man, I am starting to sound like my dad.

Seriously - how parents can allow their young children to dress this way is beyond me. I think it must have some roots in the virtual extinction of the two parent household. In America - especially in urban communities the single parent is the norm - and where there are two parents both usually work. This means that parents today have a lot on their plates and I think discipline and instilling moral values suffers. My wife and I both work - but we try very hard to not let this be an excuse to raising our kids properly.

Hope this is not too off topic - but whats up with piercings on young children? I understand that it has ethnic roots - but earings on a 6 month old baby? How about teenagers with belly rings? Sorry - not my kid.

gnomethingy · Post by **gnomethingy** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 9:30 am

Originally posted by CM
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/ ... 792567.htm
My question is how old does a girl - the article concerns only females - have to be to be able to wear clothes described in the article

I suppose this is a fairly starchy answer.. But Legally, without perental consent, I would hazard 18 (In this country anyway) Since at that age, your parents no longer have any legally backed call as to what you do..

With parental consent (Another very starchy answer, given that the clothing is sexually provocative.. 16, given that it is the age of consent, and drawing sexual attention before your legally alloud to have sex has to be (Strictly speaking) Pointless and kind of Taboo, doesnt it?

There is no age limit, the question should never have been raised...

Liken this to somone cousing a problem that requires the meaning of life to solve...

They (The companies) have in there miserable search for $$$ presented us with a question that cannot be solved or answered in a reasonable fashion.. Sad fact, this creates one more argument between parents and children, just one more thing that makes your kids resent you, on top of every other thing.

One more thing, for the poor sod parents to worry and stress over, when already there is too much crap being flung at them from all directions.. Now they have to worry about there five year old looking like a Ghetto skank

Doncha love it?

One more stinking thing.. That could have been left alone, never stirred.. Till the very end of eternity, but noooooo those smarmy suit wearing dollar farming townee corporate whoars had to go a kick it all up, and make a mess no one can ever clean up for good.. ..

No no, this is simply one more fight

Its just like violent toys, movies, etc the Moraly decayed television characters and role models, loads apon loads of anti religous propaganda, Ghetto culture, Filthy slang and one BILLION and one things your kids are going to want to do.. Years before they probably should

You cant stop em, you can tell em no, a kick up a storm, and yell at em, and make em hate you.. But its just going to reinforce there desire, as long as everything around them tells them that being a theif / thug / Slut / Gangster / Pimp / Jerk is cool, there going to want to do it.. the Media barrage has become too massive, Its not even like there going to get bored of it couse you know that doesnt work, they just subtly alter the fad so it looks like something new..

These days, Media encourages nothing but the most base things.. Sex, violence etc becouse they sing to the blood, its all inbred.. A desire to show other men whos boss, a desire to lure a mate and many other things.. In the blood, becouse the mediums of fashion and entertainment arnt willing to use creative effort anymore to create something truly original and appealing, no. Better to encourage and play up to humakinds ****tier urges, thats way you need little effort, and still bring in the $$$

Lets breed a generation of Violent Jerkoffs and sluts, so theyl always want to buy our jerkoff crap and sluty clothes...

Wohooo! This is a vast drunken rant, and I aint'nt done...

Now.. This is my point, im getting to it.. Here it is,

Ill use myself as an example and ill susbtitute sex for violence,

When I was eleven, I owned a .22 rifle.. As violent a 'toy' as a kid could wish for, but it was employed primarily for shooting a beat up moke, stoopid freshy water eels and tin cans, becouse I had no "HERO" on tv shooting police, no violent movie to turn my brain, I had violent toys.. But I wasnt FED violence, to me, the act of firing a gun was no different to getting a meal, something you did becouse you felt like it, and it was enjoyable..

But, it was Innocent...

You need to understand, that Overtly Sexual clothing is fine, as long as the kids arnt FED sex, which ... Sadly, they are

Which brings me back to the top... One more thing to fight with your kids about,

And people acually ask me why I hate kids, heck, other peoples kids are fine.. Couse I dont gotta worry about this Garbage,

I apologize for the length of my innane babble, maybe there is sanity mixed in, who knows?

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 9:49 am

Our friend CM asks some dicey questions, which boil down to this: How much freedom are parents giving their kids to wear whatever the hell they want?

Short of nudity, dress codes are hard to put into law, harder to get past the courts and nearly impossible to enforce. Simply having a tight shirt that shows off a girl's breasts and the words "Your boyfriend wants me" splayed across her chest is certainly on the edge of what is in good taste, but not illegal.

I think a lot of parents let their kids buy whatever they want and wear whatever they want. When my stepdaughter was in high school, she was wearing baggy clothes and dressing like a hoodlum. We let her because although we gave her some money for school clothes, by and large most of her wardrobe she either paid for herself or borrowed from her friends. Of course, a 17 year old in high school is a whole different case from an 11 year old girl wearing shorts that say "Bootylicious" across the ass.

In my opinion, many parents see this has harmless and even a little fun. I babysit a little girl (she's 2) who has a bunch of shirts that say things like "Cute", "Hugs", "Baby" and "Girls Rule!" which are hardly controversial. However, this becomes something far more provocative when it's a 12 year old with bra lines in a shirt that reads, "You know you want me" and I don't think many parents want to clamp down on their kids for fear of being disliked (parents aren't supposed to be liked by their kids; if they were, they'd be their friends).

Divorced parents also facilitate this sort of behaviour. Our friend smass touched on this a little while back, but many parents use material things as a way of winning the favour of their children away from an ex-spouse and get into pissing matches when they should be more concerned about providing a good environment for their kids to grow up in. My brother-in-law's daughter is very good at playing one of her parents off against the other and getting what she wants.

What those clothes do is get attention. However, it is my belief that the duty of making sure that 13 year old kids aren't dressing like whores falls to their parents, not society.

gnomethingy · Post by **gnomethingy** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 10:36 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
.

(parents aren't supposed to be liked by their kids; if they were, they'd be their friends).

.

"I was my parents' puppet till my teenage years
When I rebelled and swapped them for my peers
I used to sit for hours all alone
Without an opinion to call my own" (Ho ho ho, dumb quote)

My point is that exactly, its the parents problem

But the problem was created by society.. (As with all to many things)

Jaesha · Post by **Jaesha** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 10:43 am

Where I live, it´s even possible to buy g-strings to girls as young as kindergarten age.

gnomethingy · Post by **gnomethingy** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 10:55 am

Originally posted by Jaesha
Where I live, it´s even possible to buy g-strings to girls as young as kindergarten age.

Does that even deserve mention? I mean.. Who came up with that idea? And what did they do with his corpse?

Jaesha · Post by **Jaesha** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 11:02 am

@Thingy: Some parents are actually sick enough to buy them for their kids.

*rage*

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 5:03 pm

Forest Gump

Just think.

Stupid is as Stupid does.

To some a thong is a sexual item, to other more oblivius parents. It is just a pair of undergarments. The world is full of morons, not all mean and cruel just idiotic. Bear with it, because thier not slowing down in thier numbers... only increasing.

thug

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:08 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave
However, it is my belief that the duty of making sure that 13 year old kids aren't dressing like whores falls to their parents, not society.

I partly disagree with this, although I agree it is primarily not a legal matter, but a cultural. Maybe it could be turned into a legal matter inasmuch as laws concerning media exposure of children.

Children, mostly girls but also boys, are getting more and more sexualised and sensualised in media and in society in general. This has been a hot debate topic in Sweden, since some people believe this has a connection to the increasing reports of pedophilia. People who argue for this connection, think pedophiles get the message that sexualisation of children is acceptable, and therefore are more inclined to actually molest children and consume child pornography.

Whereas I am personally insecury about the validity of those claims, I do think that sexualisation of children in soceity is the reason for 12 years olds wanting to expose themselves as sex objects by using suggestive clothes as markers. In the US and perhaps other countries as well, beuaty contests for children have existed a long time. Boybands and teenage stars in general adds to the idea that it is important to be good looking and sexy from a very early age. In this sense, I do think the problem is at a the level of society also. It is very difficult for a sole pair of parents to resist something that is accepted as a norm in society in general.

gnomethingy · Post by **gnomethingy** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:48 pm

Re: Forest Gump

Originally posted by RandomThug
Just think.

Stupid is as Stupid does.

To some a thong is a sexual item, to other more oblivius parents. It is just a pair of undergarments.

thug

This is actually a damn good point, for the younger kids.. Is this simply a case of parents projection there own knowledge of what is sexual and what is not (Which is purely objective to begin with) onto there children, that have no point of veiw, on a topic they dont yet understand becouse they have no prior experiance with these things and have no pre conveived notion of what is and is not sexual....

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 12:50 am

Scuuuuuseeee meeeee.....

....but aren't we all a little overexited ?

As a father of a 3 y.o. and a 6 y.o. (who mostly wear Jeans and T-shirts - as their parents do

- there's nothing better than giving a "good example"... ) I've read all the postings in this thread and I have but one question -

Who cares what a child wears ?

Honestly !

It might be a cultural thing, but 10 seconds after seeing other children I can't recall what they were wearing. Hell, I can't even say for sure what MY kids are wearing at any given moment....

So what's the problem ?

No worries,

Beldin

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 1:04 am

Let them wear what they want...

...however, when you as a parent, think that such garments are inappropriate for your just-starting-puberty daughter, it would help if you sit down with your kid and make each other understand and realize the implications of wearing such clothes.

smass · Post by **smass** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 8:02 am

@Beldin - I understand your point of view for yourself - but my worries are not what I think about my kids - but what other people think. Kids wearing jeans and t-shirts is not what I have a problem with. Kids wearing ultra tight short shorts, halter tops, and g strings is. You or I don't see young children as sex objects - unfortunately some other people do - and this is what worries me. Not to mention that instilling a sense of decency and self respect in children is IMHO very important and one of my responsibilities as a parent.

Call me a prude if you like - but I believe that dressing like a slut serves no good purpose for a child. There are no positive benefits - the only reasons kids want to do it is peer pressure and advertising. We, as parents, have to help our children understand that following the crowd is not always the best policy. How you act, look, and behave is how you are perceived as a person - and perception is reality.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 8:10 am

Re: Scuuuuuseeee meeeee.....

Originally posted by Beldin
....but aren't we all a little overexited ?

As a father of a 3 y.o. and a 6 y.o. (who mostly wear Jeans and T-shirts - as their parents do - there's nothing better than giving a "good example"... ) I've read all the postings in this thread and I have but one question -

Who cares what a child wears ?

Honestly !

Let us have a second look at your response when you have a 12-year-old who's dressed like a hooker.

(Though I frankly hope you never have to face such a situation.) In other words, you're remarks may be conditioned by a lack of kids falling into that age category and dress group. Remember, 6-year-olds are not typically sexually aware (in a conscious sense). By 12, almost all kids are. A 6-year-old in a tight vinyl skirt may be considered as an object of comment or hilarity, but a 12-year-old wearing the same thing is at least cause for concern.

My wife and I have no children, but I've seen this kind of wear on 12-year-olds, and yes, it is pretty shocking. Not out a sense of prudery, but because of what it says regarding the way the marketplace forces will operate without some kind of ethical standards acknowledged by the culture.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 8:19 am

fable's last remark cuts to the heart of the issue: As a society, we need to ask ourselves what makes kids want to dress like that. They didn't when I was in middle school, so no one can tell me that it's always been that way.

I think kids emulate the people they see in the media; on TV, in Cosmo and in the movies. In short, if Jennifer Lopez is wearing a certain label or outfit (and you know the one I'm talking about), kids will want to wear the same thing. Remember all of the Madonna wannabes in the 80s? Same thing, only instead of wearing jeans and jelly shoes, they're wearing wonderbras and thongs.

Despite all of this, it is my belief that it is up to parents to put a stop to kids wearing unacceptable clothes. Schools are trying a little bit, but at the mall or out in public, it is the parent's responsibility to put their foot down and stop them from dressing like hoodlums and tramps. While this may not be the most pleasant thing for a parent to do, setting boundaries is part of the job, and I believe that no 12 year old should be dressing and acting like they're 22 and the only people who can stop her are her parents.

gnomethingy · Post by **gnomethingy** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 8:29 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
fable's last remark cuts to the heart of the issue: As a society, we need to ask ourselves what makes kids want to dress like that. They didn't when I was in middle school, so no one can tell me that it's always been that way.

I think kids emulate the people they see in the media; on TV, in Cosmo and in the movies. In short, if Jennifer Lopez is wearing a certain label or outfit (and you know the one I'm talking about), kids will want to wear the same thing. Remember all of the Madonna wannabes in the 80s? Same thing, only instead of wearing jeans and jelly shoes, they're wearing wonderbras and thongs.

Despite all of this, it is my belief that it is up to parents to put a stop to kids wearing unacceptable clothes. Schools are trying a little bit, but at the mall or out in public, it is the parent's responsibility to put their foot down and stop them from dressing like hoodlums and tramps. While this may not be the most pleasant thing for a parent to do, setting boundaries is part of the job, and I believe that no 12 year old should be dressing and acting like they're 22 and the only people who can stop her are her parents.

Highlord Dave brings wisdom and insight I could only vaguely hint at in my phyco ramblings...

Good show, besides..
No one wants there kids ending up like this....

Ode to a Grasshopper · Thu Sep 05, 2002 8:35 am

Originally posted by gnomethingy

Highlord Dave brings wisdom and insight I could only vaguely hint at in my phyco ramblings...

That happens a lot, you get used to it.

The smart thing to do is to get him (and Fable and CE, and sometimes Tom) to clarify/improve your points for you, and provide information and examples that back up your case.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 8:46 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I think kids emulate the people they see in the media; on TV, in Cosmo and in the movies. In short, if Jennifer Lopez is wearing a certain label or outfit (and you know the one I'm talking about), kids will want to wear the same thing. Remember all of the Madonna wannabes in the 80s? Same thing, only instead of wearing jeans and jelly shoes, they're wearing wonderbras and thongs.

Quite so. We (collectively, as a group of urban cultures spread throughout the world) are an electronic society that uses electronic entertainment as our children's nanny and social arbiter. Television and the movies teach our kids language, behavior, proper attire, music, etc.

Because of this, I think that the place for parents to take control over their children's education is not in the legal system, but in the home. Parents cannot inculcate standards without both regular family dialog and an opportunity for kids to observe these standards in action. In the US, we've seen many examples of fringe religious groups putting the main burden for such matters upon a host of targets--notably schools. But it starts at home. If parents aren't willing to commit to the time and interaction required to raise their children according to their best lights, they can hardly expect anybody else to do the job as they would wish.

Money in use is power. Large corporations that control ever-growing media powers do need, IMO, to be monitored, and laws enacted to prevent their unbridled influence. But the best, the first, and the easiest control for the pervasive influence of television is already in the hands of parents, everywhere. It is called the on/off switch.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 8:54 am

Originally posted by fable
In the US, we've seen many examples of fringe religious groups putting the main burden for such matters upon a host of targets--notably schools. But it starts at home. If parents aren't willing to commit to the time and interaction required to raise their children according to their best lights, they can hardly expect anybody else to do the job as they would wish.

This is because our society denies personal responsibility. This is why so many kids are on Ritalin and other medications; the parents don't want to take responsiblility for the fact that their child misbehaves and lacks discipline. Ritalin tells parents that their kid has ADD, not that the parent didn't give them a swift slap on the rear when they needed one.*

At the same time, by blaming the media/schools for the way their child dresses or the fact that by the time they're 14 a large percentage of kids are having sex, parents are absolving themselves of their failure to properly supervise and guide their own children.

Anyone can sire or give birth to a child. However, it takes a lifelong commitment to be a parent, and that is something our society is not very good at.

*Not that there isn't any such thing as ADD; there is, but it is my opinion that ADD is something that is overdiagnosed and overmedicated.