PDA

View Full Version : Candies and Kohls - G-Strings for preteen girls?


Dorian Gray
5th May 2010, 07:15 PM
http://blog.pigtailpals.com/2010/05/g-strings-for-preteens/
schnippervescence

When I challenged Candie’s about marketing sexy panties to young girls, a rep from Candie’s left a comment on my blog, then sent me a message on Twitter, then sent me an email, all with contradictory or absent contact info and three different age ranges as to who is Candie’s demographic. First it was 16-21 years old. But their own website says 7-16 and Juniors. Then an email response said 18-24 years old. Which is it, Candie’s? The print ads run in teen magazines, arguably read by girls far younger than the 18 years they claim to market to. I don’t know how many 24 year olds wear training bras. Even if their market is 16-21 years old like written by a Candie’s rep on my blog, wouldn’t the promotion on Twitter of Britney Spear’s song “Three”, an ode threesomes, be inappropriate? Especially considering a 16 year old participating in a threesome, aside from being illegal, would have more chances of getting pregnant, not something Candie’s is trying to promote with their Candie’s Foundation against teen pregnancy. (http://www.candiesfoundation.org/)
I continued to press for answers, and was directed to Kohl’s. Fine. So I email Kohl’s, and get a corporate sounding response from an Assistant Manager in the Correspondence Department. I was told “the Candie’s brand is meant to be stylish and invoke self-confidence” and the other brands are carried to appeal to different tastes. I found this incredibly stupid for three reasons.


I don’t care if grown women (18 years+) are wearing thongs. I don’t give a hoot. My concern that the thongs were being merchandised to young teen/tween girls was not addressed.
Just because other brands are offered does not negate the wrong-doing of the brand over here. I’m not going to shift focus from the problem. Pump fake.
Candie’s may be considered stylish by some. But ‘invoke self-confidence’? Hypersexualization does not invoke self-confident girls. It creates confused girls and endangered girls.

I was invited to call with further questions. I had a lot of further questions. So I called and spoke with this same Assistant Manager in the Correspondence Department. I got the overall impression that one) Kohl’s should have given me someone higher up to speak to, and two) they seem seriously confused on what builds self-confidence in young women. Most of the same verbage from the email was regurgitated during the phone call. I questioned Kohl’s embracing a brand like Candie’s who uses overtly sexual marketing to capture the attention of young girls. I asked about the proximity of the sexy panties to the training bras and the Juniors section. I asked how this was meant to empower a young girl?
Here’s what I got, from the corporate representative who was handling my escalated customer service complaint and was told she was on the record:


“We offer other choices of brands and styles.”
“Candie’s will continue to be an exclusive brand for us. It does well for us.”
“We implement changes based on customer feedback.”
“I agree with you, and you can always vote with your money.”
“Bottom line: it sells”

Bottom line, it sells. Bottom line, it sells?!? The bottom line is this doesn’t sell with me. Hell no.


Snippity doo da


I am not down with the g-strings for preteens. They're associated with things that preteens don't need to be messing with yet. It just seems creepy. And that last argument is stupid. I'm sure child porn would sell, bottom line - but that doesn't mean it should be sold.


Am I comparing preteen g-strings with porn? Well, they aren't using preteens in the g-string ads or pics, are they. Why might that be, I wonder.....

pgwenthold
5th May 2010, 07:44 PM
I have trouble figuring out why they are even wearing thong underwear.

NoZed Avenger
5th May 2010, 08:37 PM
Holy cats, that's repugnant.

Ron_Tomkins
5th May 2010, 09:30 PM
I wonder why they call them "G" String. I could speculate a hunch but it would raise the already high creepy factor in this thread.

Nosi
5th May 2010, 09:34 PM
http://blog.pigtailpals.com/2010/05/g-strings-for-preteens/

Am I comparing preteen g-strings with porn? Well, they aren't using preteens in the g-string ads or pics, are they. Why might that be, I wonder.....

I've heard one reason for wearing G-strings is that other forms of underpants leave telltales of their presence in the seats of girl's (and women's) pants which can cause embarrassment. Teen and tweens, especially females, are very prone to thinking about their external image, and can worry about things like underwear outlines being seen through their jeans. That problem is so for form fitting and not form fitting pants and even skirts. Now, this is just scuttlebutt that I heard in the locker room when I was in college so I don't have a link to give you.

Personally, I don't give a flying turd if the outlines of my granny panties can be seen through my sweat pants. For me, comfort blows fashion out of the water six days of the week and three times on Sunday.

Kevin_Lowe
5th May 2010, 10:05 PM
What exactly is the fuss about? Is this kind of like the Superbowl nipple thing?

commandlinegamer
6th May 2010, 04:29 AM
I've heard one reason for wearing G-strings is that other forms of underpants leave telltales of their presence in the seats of girl's (and women's) pants which can cause embarrassment. Teen and tweens, especially females, are very prone to thinking about their external image, and can worry about things like underwear outlines being seen through their jeans. That problem is so for form fitting and not form fitting pants and even skirts. Now, this is just scuttlebutt that I heard in the locker room when I was in college so I don't have a link to give you.

Personally, I don't give a flying turd if the outlines of my granny panties can be seen through my sweat pants. For me, comfort blows fashion out of the water six days of the week and three times on Sunday.

Surely VPL is not a problem if you wear skirt and petticoat I would have thought. However when wearing low-rise jeans, even a thong is often visible. In any case I don't think modern females are quite as embarrassed as previous generations about their body image, given the number of muffin-tops you see these days.

DC
6th May 2010, 04:39 AM
what is the issue here?

Cainkane1
6th May 2010, 04:45 AM
No you're right children need to go through a period of innocence so that they can develope in a normal manner. G-strings are for grown girls. If I had a daughter of any age and if she lived under my roof she wouldn't be wearing a G-string anything.

Careyp74
6th May 2010, 04:49 AM
I've heard one reason for wearing G-strings is that other forms of underpants leave telltales of their presence in the seats of girl's (and women's) pants which can cause embarrassment. Teen and tweens, especially females, are very prone to thinking about their external image, and can worry about things like underwear outlines being seen through their jeans. That problem is so for form fitting and not form fitting pants and even skirts. Now, this is just scuttlebutt that I heard in the locker room when I was in college so I don't have a link to give you.

Personally, I don't give a flying turd if the outlines of my granny panties can be seen through my sweat pants. For me, comfort blows fashion out of the water six days of the week and three times on Sunday.

It is interesting if that were true, because girls have the exact opposite idea of bras. They can't wait to start wearing one, because everyone else does. Perhaps it is the idea that all their friends with the lax parents are letting them wear thong underwear, so they want to also, and it isn't an external or self image thing.

what is the issue here?

The discussion seems to be whether or not you would let your 7 year old daughter wear the underwear pictured in the link. Well?

DC
6th May 2010, 05:00 AM
The discussion seems to be whether or not you would let your 7 year old daughter wear the underwear pictured in the link. Well?

mmh i dunno.

daenku32
6th May 2010, 05:06 AM
No you're right children need to go through a period of innocence so that they can develope in a normal manner. G-strings are for grown girls. If I had a daughter of any age and if she lived under my roof she wouldn't be wearing a G-string anything.

"Daddy, what are you doing in my underwear drawer?"

"I'm just trying to get my hands on your G-string panties."

Sophronius
6th May 2010, 05:17 AM
On the one hand, this does sound kind of creepy.

On the other hand, people are going bananas over what type of underwear children wear these days.


So unless I am missing something important (for example, evidence that this is damaging in some way), this reads like just another case of old fashioned people going "Somebody think of the children!!!" which doesn't really sell with me.

Drudgewire
6th May 2010, 05:23 AM
http://blog.pigtailpals.com/2010/05/g-strings-for-preteens/

I am not down with the g-strings for preteens. They're associated with things that preteens don't need to be messing with yet. It just seems creepy. And that last argument is stupid. I'm sure child porn would sell, bottom line - but that doesn't mean it should be sold.


Am I comparing preteen g-strings with porn? Well, they aren't using preteens in the g-string ads or pics, are they. Why might that be, I wonder.....


I'm more disturbed you're reading a blog called "pigtailpals" than by anything Kohl's is selling. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/raise.gif

JFrankA
6th May 2010, 05:23 AM
On the one hand, this does sound kind of creepy.

On the other hand, people are going bananas over what type of underwear children wear these days.


So unless I am missing something important (for example, evidence that this is damaging in some way), this reads like just another case of old fashioned people going "Somebody think of the children!!!" which doesn't really sell with me.

I agree with you, Sophronius.

They're wearing G-Strings, so what? It's still a pre-teen in underwear. I remember running around without underwear as a pre-teen just because it was comfortable.

Sorry, to me, if someone is outraged by having a pre-teen wear a G-String then the outraged person is guilty of seeing the child in a sexual way, and further, trying to get other people to see children in G-Strings in a sexual way.

Skeptical Greg
6th May 2010, 05:34 AM
So unless I am missing something important (for example, evidence that this is damaging in some way), this reads like just another case of old fashioned people going "Somebody think of the children!!!" which doesn't really sell with me.

I might tend to agree with you but did you read the blog article linked in the OP ?

I really don't like the idea of targeting pre-teens with a a slutty Britney Spears ..


I find it pretty creepy ..

Sophronius
6th May 2010, 05:35 AM
I agree with you, Sophronius.

They're wearing G-Strings, so what? It's still a pre-teen in underwear. I remember running around without underwear as a pre-teen just because it was comfortable.

Aye. It seems likely that they are just doing it to be 'cool', or to be provocative. (clearly it works)

Sorry, to me, if someone is outraged by having a pre-teen wear a G-String then the outraged person is guilty of seeing the child in a sexual way, and further, trying to get other people to see children in G-Strings in a sexual way.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Rather, that person is guilty of being overly paranoid regarding the safety of their children (I blame parental instinct and fox news)

Ie, the kind of person who thinks that if a grownup talks to a random kid on the street then clearly he must be a pedophile. :boggled:


I might tend to agree with you but did you read the blog article linked in the OP ?

I really don't like the idea of targeting pre-teens with a a slutty Britney Spears ..

Yep, I read some of it, but I'm not really buying it. There's plenty of grownups that think Britney spears with a teddy bear is sexy, so the idea that this is marketed to children lacks substance.

Drewbot
6th May 2010, 05:45 AM
Well I guess this is where parenting comes in, idn't it?

Darth Rotor
6th May 2010, 06:02 AM
Bottom line: it sells

I wonder if that pun was deliberate.

My wife frequently checked my daughter's underwear drawer when she was preteen to teenager, and more than once had less than joyful conversations about:

What is this thong doing in your drawer?
Where did you buy it and why?
What makes you think this is a good idea?

We both had much frustration with the prevalance of hip hugger and low, low, low cut jeans that, IMO, were a deliberate attempt by the fashion industry to force females of any and all ages to have their (where the legs join, in the front) plucked, waxed or shaved. How far below the navel should the top of the jeans descend, I wondered? Some of the styles seemed to think that mid thigh was about right. :p Finding jeans that weren't trampy was tough.

The Missus wasn't into the tramp look, at all. Nor was I. On more than one occasion, before school, my daughter was sent up to her room to wash her face, and come down with no, or very little, make up on. I did not consider it appropriate for an 8th grader to wear war paint to school.

She eventually clued up later in high school, but someone mentioned the role of parents in this whole deal. Correct.

DR

Cainkane1
6th May 2010, 06:12 AM
"Daddy, what are you doing in my underwear drawer?"

"I'm just trying to get my hands on your G-string panties."
Mommy not Daddy.

Tsukasa Buddha
6th May 2010, 06:53 AM
I agree with you, Sophronius.

They're wearing G-Strings, so what? It's still a pre-teen in underwear. I remember running around without underwear as a pre-teen just because it was comfortable.

Sorry, to me, if someone is outraged by having a pre-teen wear a G-String then the outraged person is guilty of seeing the child in a sexual way, and further, trying to get other people to see children in G-Strings in a sexual way.

What? So when a kid wears sexy underwear, it is my fault for recognizing how creepy that is? I'm sexualizing the kid?

elgarak
6th May 2010, 07:02 AM
1) I think it's fairly normal that a girl would like to wear the same stuff as Mommy. If Mommy's wearing thongs, as everyday clothing (which some women do), why not the daughter?

2) I once dated a tiny Chinese woman. She was in her thirties, but so small that she was often forced to buy children's clothing. She would have been extremely happy with such offerings.

ponderingturtle
6th May 2010, 08:38 AM
See this is the problem of letting girls wear pants. They should not be allowed anything as highly sexual as pants, they are just too slutty for properly raised girls.

ponderingturtle
6th May 2010, 08:44 AM
Lets talk about something else, what is an appropriate swimming suit for a say 8 year old girl? Most people would think a bikini is way to sexy for that age, and would instead say that they need one that covers most of their torso. Why is this? There is no practical reason for them to wear different swimming suits than little boys until they start to develop breasts at the least.

So is the idea that little girls need some top more revolting than the idea of a bikini on an 8 year old? Which view sexualizes them more?

Ryokan
6th May 2010, 08:47 AM
It is interesting if that were true, because girls have the exact opposite idea of bras. They can't wait to start wearing one, because everyone else does.

They want to wear bras because that's what big girls do. I suspect the same is true when it comes to thongs.

I don't really care what little girls wear under their trousers or skirts. It's none of my business and it doesn't hurt anyone.

bluesjnr
6th May 2010, 08:48 AM
Seems like just another day at Reactionary Mall on Knee Jerk Street.

I couldn't tell you and don't give a toss what kind of underwear your average preteen is wearing. How the hell could I possibly know?

Schrodinger's Cat
6th May 2010, 08:59 AM
I've heard one reason for wearing G-strings is that other forms of underpants leave telltales of their presence in the seats of girl's (and women's) pants which can cause embarrassment. Teen and tweens, especially females, are very prone to thinking about their external image, and can worry about things like underwear outlines being seen through their jeans. That problem is so for form fitting and not form fitting pants and even skirts. Now, this is just scuttlebutt that I heard in the locker room when I was in college so I don't have a link to give you.

Personally, I don't give a flying turd if the outlines of my granny panties can be seen through my sweat pants. For me, comfort blows fashion out of the water six days of the week and three times on Sunday.

This is why I started wearing thongs, had nothing to do with being sexy, that wasn't even on my mind. I just was embarassed at the underwear lines. Also although thongs can still show above jeans, non thongs have much more of a tendency of riding up above the pant line. I started wearing them pretty young (way younger than sex having time) and so did several of my girl friends.

*warning, icky girl talk ahead*

Another great thing about thongs is that they have less surface area and are a tighter fit.When I have my period and am wearing pads or a tampon with panty liner, and wear full sized underwear, it is harder for the pad/panty liner to stay in place and to prevent leakage than with a thong (so long as the thong of course isn't TOO small so that the pad/panty liner can't be easily kept in place).

I would buy them for my pre teen daughter (not that I have one yet), though I would definitely go for something plain and cotton as opposed to anything lacy/racy.

JWideman
6th May 2010, 09:05 AM
Regardless of the validity of the argument, this writer lost all credibility with me when she asserted there was something inappropriate about Brittany Spears holding a teddy bear. It's the same mentality that wants to ban the video games and comics that I play and read because "only kids play video games and read comic books".
Further, she's from Wisconsin and is trying apply her backwards hicksville values to Southern California. What 7 year old girls are wearing under their jeans are of no concern to anyone! It is called underwear for a reason.

Darth Rotor
6th May 2010, 09:11 AM
Further, she's from Wisconsin and is trying apply her backwards hicksville values to Southern California.
You might be surprised at how liberal Wisconsin is ... check out the University's battle with the ROTC over homosexuality in uniform ...
What 7 year old girls are wearing under their jeans are of no concern to anyone!
Their mothers get a vote on what they wear.
It is called underwear for a reason.
Agreed.

For Schrodinger's Cat: thanks for that info on practicality. Was unaware of the utility in that feature of underwear.

DR

quarky
6th May 2010, 09:19 AM
I've got 2 grown daughters, so may not be impartial. I find it creepy. Oddly enough, I'm fine with nudity. But the junior skank-ho look makes me feel like an old conservative.

Skeptical Greg
6th May 2010, 09:37 AM
This is why I started wearing thongs, had nothing to do with being sexy, that wasn't even on my mind. I just was embarassed at the underwear lines............

So, you were embarrassed about underwear lines, but not about the appearance of no underwear at all ?

Sophronius
6th May 2010, 09:50 AM
Their mothers get a vote on what they wear.


Well, if the mother buys the underwear, sure. But if the girl buys it from her own pocket money, then I honestly don't see the problem.

And should a son get the same treatment, or are they allowed to pick their own underwear?

Sorry if I'm reading too much into this, but I just find your apparent position on this strange, especially since I normally find your posts very sensible. :confused:

Skeptical Greg
6th May 2010, 10:00 AM
Well, if the mother buys the underwear, sure. But if the girl buys it from her own pocket money, then I honestly don't see the problem....


Do you have children ?

Do you feel children who have their own money, should be free to buy whatever they want, with no parental control ?

Sophronius
6th May 2010, 10:12 AM
Do you have children ?

No. If you mean this to imply that I cannot have an informed opinion on the subject, I will counter that most people get decidedly less rational when it comes to the subject of their children, especially the safety thereof. It's all instinct. Hence the reason that "think of the children" is so effective.

Do you feel children who have their own money, should be free to buy whatever they want, with no parental control ?

Whatever they want? Far too broad a statement for me to agree with. When it comes to harmless things like their underwear? Well yes.

Skeptical Greg
6th May 2010, 10:50 AM
Who gets to decide if it's harmless ?

Sophronius
6th May 2010, 11:33 AM
Uhm, reason?

Skeptical Greg
6th May 2010, 11:43 AM
Uhm, parent-child relationship ?

Polaris
6th May 2010, 11:44 AM
Bottom line: it sells

I wonder if that pun was deliberate.

My wife frequently checked my daughter's underwear drawer when she was preteen to teenager, and more than once had less than joyful conversations about:

What is this thong doing in your drawer?
Where did you buy it and why?
What makes you think this is a good idea?

We both had much frustration with the prevalance of hip hugger and low, low, low cut jeans that, IMO, were a deliberate attempt by the fashion industry to force females of any and all ages to have their (where the legs join, in the front) plucked, waxed or shaved. How far below the navel should the top of the jeans descend, I wondered? Some of the styles seemed to think that mid thigh was about right. :p Finding jeans that weren't trampy was tough.

The Missus wasn't into the tramp look, at all. Nor was I. On more than one occasion, before school, my daughter was sent up to her room to wash her face, and come down with no, or very little, make up on. I did not consider it appropriate for an 8th grader to wear war paint to school.

She eventually clued up later in high school, but someone mentioned the role of parents in this whole deal. Correct.

DR

It's called the "mons".

Sophronius
6th May 2010, 11:51 AM
Uhm, parent-child relationship ?

This is such a wonderful discussion.

Just get to your point. Do you think that allowing children to pick their own underwear is dangerous? Do you fear the corruption of moral values as a result of corporations targeting children with their marketing schemes? Do you resent my notion that parents shouldn't be overly possessive of and/or paranoid about their children? Or are you just having a knee jerk reaction to the words "children" and "lingery" being mentioned in the same sentence?

Just say it.

Skeptical Greg
6th May 2010, 12:07 PM
My only point at this time, was your claim that it should be left up to the child if they use their own money ..

Sounds like an interesting ( and probably not unique ) approach to parenting..

Sophronius
6th May 2010, 12:10 PM
I certainly hope not.

It's their own money. The whole point of giving them pocket money is so that they can spend it for themselves (and hopefully learn something from it). If you then decide for them what they are allowed to buy with it, that kind of defeats the point.

Safe-Keeper
6th May 2010, 12:20 PM
If it can be seen as more "sexualization" of young children, then yes, it's bad. I question the wisdom of buying or selling them in general.

Darth Rotor
6th May 2010, 12:53 PM
Well, if the mother buys the underwear, sure. But if the girl buys it from her own pocket money, then I honestly don't see the problem.
You are free to take that up with my wife. My daughter is twenty, and her mother still gets on her about some of what she wears, though at this point, it's a matter of sniping.
And should a son get the same treatment, or are they allowed to pick their own underwear?
Have you raised any preteen boys? Mom buys underwear, boy wears it.
Sorry if I'm reading too much into this, but I just find your apparent position on this strange, especially since I normally find your posts very sensible. :confused:
Maybe you are reading too much into this.

I found your question on the preteen boys strange. Do preteen and teenaged boys typically wear G strings that you are aware of? My son doesn't care for tighty whities, he prefers the newer genre of the cross between boxers and briefs, but he's 17 now. As a preteen and newteen, he wore underwear. There was no drama, as for him it was a non issue. The trick was to get him to tuck in his shirt, or comb his hair.

Me, I just want a clean pair in the drawer, that fits, when I wake up in the morning. I can ensure this by now and again being the one who washes, dries, and folds the laundry.

PS: I don't think guys give a flying rat's behind about panty lines. I am a guy. Are there any guys who do?

DR

ponderingturtle
6th May 2010, 12:59 PM
PS: I don't think guys give a flying rat's behind about panty lines. I am a guy. Are there any guys who do?

DR

Probably, given how much people sexualize thongs or not wearing underwear. So panty line means not having sexy options for underwear.

Psi Baba
6th May 2010, 01:48 PM
PS: I don't think guys give a flying rat's behind about panty lines. I am a guy. Are there any guys who do?

DR
Some of us actually find them sexy, but no woman in the world will believe that.

Anyway, what I really wanted to say was that the thread seems to have spun around to being about what pre-teen girls wear, should wear, or shouldn't wear. The OP as I understood it, is not whether pre-teens at the mall are sneaking into Victoria's Secret and buying thongs, it's about marketing tactics of Candies (the manufacturer) and Kohl's (the retailer) deliberately selling this stuff to very young girls. It's a little beyond creepy. I agree with the thoughts expressed about proper parenting, but I can imagine this type of marketing just makes that all the more difficult when someone's young daughter wants the sexy lingerie that's hanging right next to the training bras. How do you tell her that those are "adult" items, when they're clearly made in children's sizes and displayed in the children's department? Of course it's not going to bring society to its knees or anything, but it certainly seems like someone is crossing a line here, and apparently their attitude, as the blogger discovered, is that they just don't care.

Freddy
6th May 2010, 03:06 PM
I wonder why they call them "G" String. I could speculate a hunch but it would raise the already high creepy factor in this thread.

So that people who play the guitar can giggle when they go to the music store and declare that that broke their G string and require a new one.

Skeptical Greg
6th May 2010, 04:23 PM
I wonder why they call them "G" String. I could speculate a hunch but it would raise the already high creepy factor in this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_string

The origin of the term "G-string" is obscure. Since the 19th century, the term geestring referred to the string which held the loincloth of Native Americans [1] and later referred to the narrow loincloth itself.

Kevin_Lowe
6th May 2010, 06:50 PM
Is there actually a positive argument against making this sort of underwear available other than "it's creepy"?

As others have said, "it's creepy" is merely a statement about what those articles of clothing make you think.

Piggy
6th May 2010, 07:21 PM
Well I guess this is where parenting comes in, idn't it?

Yes, but the role of parents does not just include raising your own kid. It also includes being an active buyer, and letting stores know what you think about what they're doing.

Young kids are very impressionable, as everyone knows, and very sensitive to what they think is cool, what they think everyone is doing, what they think everyone wants to do.

When a manufacturer and a store are aggressively marketing sexualized products, plugged by teen idols, to pubescents and very young adolescents, then it's part of "parenting" to be an active citizen and push back.

quarky
6th May 2010, 08:17 PM
I had a brief daydream just now, reading this thread.
I was the ceo of an ultra-hip (and pricey) clothing line.

I would send employees to towns that were doing pretty well, and go to a few P.T.A. meetings, as a spy of sorts, to see what the high school kids parents were wearing.

Next, design a bunch of stuff that is pretty much the opposite of there look.

Next, have a few more 'spys', for lack of better word, infiltrate the happening schools of the area. They would be trained to spot the girls that had it all going on; the bosses.

Next, give them a bunch of your new stuff; free; under the pretense that she one some random drawing or whatever.

She starts to wear the stuff. The other girls are pretty much obligated to follow suit.

For the alpha males, same deal, different clothes.

JWideman
6th May 2010, 09:54 PM
While mom's get a say in what their kids wear (and have the last word, for that matter), she has no reason to be concerned that her daughter is going to be showing everyone her uncovered bottom. This is underwear, as in "worn under clothing".
I was on the other side of this argument when my daughter wanted to wear thongs. My wife made me realize that I wasn't being protective, I was being unreasonable. Thongs are only "sexy" clothing when one isn't wearing pants.

Tsukasa Buddha
6th May 2010, 11:41 PM
Um, my whole thought process is that the point of such lacy underwear pictured is to be seen as sexy by others.

But let's rationalize away and say the kid might find it comfortable or appealing without anyone else seeing it. Maybe it boosts their self esteem :rolleyes: .

Puppycow
7th May 2010, 12:12 AM
I certainly hope not.

It's their own money. The whole point of giving them pocket money is so that they can spend it for themselves (and hopefully learn something from it). If you then decide for them what they are allowed to buy with it, that kind of defeats the point.

No. My wife and I give our kids an allowance but we (mostly my wife) still rule out some things. Anything she doesn't consider to be safe or age-appropriate.

merentha
7th May 2010, 01:04 AM
I've come across some mothers in my previous workplace who think nothing about buying bikini-style swimsuits and modeled-on-adult-fashion revealing clothes for their pre-pubescent daughters. They would even flatter their girls with phrases like, "Ooh! So sexy!", as if that's appropriate baby-talk, and the girls love the attention.

I'm thinking, "Sexy for whom? The neighbourhood pedophile?"

Foolmewunz
7th May 2010, 02:03 AM
You are free to take that up with my wife. My daughter is twenty, and her mother still gets on her about some of what she wears, though at this point, it's a matter of sniping.

Have you raised any preteen boys? Mom buys underwear, boy wears it.

Maybe you are reading too much into this.

I found your question on the preteen boys strange. Do preteen and teenaged boys typically wear G strings that you are aware of? My son doesn't care for tighty whities, he prefers the newer genre of the cross between boxers and briefs, but he's 17 now. As a preteen and newteen, he wore underwear. There was no drama, as for him it was a non issue. The trick was to get him to tuck in his shirt, or comb his hair.

Me, I just want a clean pair in the drawer, that fits, when I wake up in the morning. I can ensure this by now and again being the one who washes, dries, and folds the laundry.

PS: I don't think guys give a flying rat's behind about panty lines. I am a guy. Are there any guys who do?

DR

I may have to change my custom title if you get much agreement on that last paragraph. I'm a leg and butt man. I'd be the Leader of the VPL Opposition. It's all the fault of the Hong Kong Chinese women. For ages here, the thong or even bikini cut panties were considered far to risque, so you'd see the loveliest of females with cutest little er um cute parts... wiggling your way and when you found an excuse to pretend to turn 'round so you could admire them, you'd see not a nice wholesome sixties or seventies bikini line and definitely not a "no line" from panty hose or a thong, but the VPL of your grandmothers great huge cotton drawers! Full butt. Full right hip bone. Full left hip bone. Went up to not just the hips, not just the waist, but up to their chins! Depressingly huge thick cotton panties.

And too tight!!! And under tighter pants so they left great huge rifts of panty lines. Panty lines the size of the Marianas trench. And worse yet, the pants they wore over these great huge bloomers were of such thin fabric that you could actually make out the double lined area of the panties' crotch.

So mark down one vote here at "Pro Thong", "Pro Panty Hose". It's not the snickering about the fact that the girl has a thong or g-string on so must be easy, because I have the same reaction to panty hose that leave no line. It's an aesthetic thing. The female posterior is a delight (YMMV). I do not want to see it all marked up with fabric lines and seams.


You may now return to your regularly scheduled incredulity.

Puppycow
7th May 2010, 03:09 AM
I've come across some mothers in my previous workplace who think nothing about buying bikini-style swimsuits and modeled-on-adult-fashion revealing clothes for their pre-pubescent daughters. They would even flatter their girls with phrases like, "Ooh! So sexy!", as if that's appropriate baby-talk, and the girls love the attention.

I'm thinking, "Sexy for whom? The neighbourhood pedophile?"

Maybe mom is the neighborhood pedo. :eye-poppi

ponderingturtle
7th May 2010, 05:09 AM
I've come across some mothers in my previous workplace who think nothing about buying bikini-style swimsuits and modeled-on-adult-fashion revealing clothes for their pre-pubescent daughters. They would even flatter their girls with phrases like, "Ooh! So sexy!", as if that's appropriate baby-talk, and the girls love the attention.

I'm thinking, "Sexy for whom? The neighbourhood pedophile?"

So I will put you down as one who considered Bikini's more disturbing than full torso covering swimsuits.

Skeptical Greg
7th May 2010, 07:21 AM
Why don't you put him/her down having a problem with " mothers who tell their pre-pubescent daughters they are ' So sexy! ', instead of making up stuff she/he didn't say ?

Should we put you down, as OK with the " So Sexy ! " thing ?

elgarak
7th May 2010, 07:29 AM
I'm thinking, "Sexy for whom? The neighbourhood pedophile?"
This argument never made sense for me. Why in the name of FSM's tentacles should we outlaw anything based on how a small minority of pervs may react to it?

You remember "Airplane"? Peter Graves as an über-creepy boy-f***er? "Timmy, do you like gladiator movies?"

I guess that means all gladiator movies need to be outlawed...

Drewbot
7th May 2010, 07:43 AM
Yes, but the role of parents does not just include raising your own kid. It also includes being an active buyer, and letting stores know what you think about what they're doing.

Young kids are very impressionable, as everyone knows, and very sensitive to what they think is cool, what they think everyone is doing, what they think everyone wants to do.

When a manufacturer and a store are aggressively marketing sexualized products, plugged by teen idols, to pubescents and very young adolescents, then it's part of "parenting" to be an active citizen and push back.

If that is your definition of parenting.

What if a parent prefers to handle his/her own family, and let other families parent as they deem proper?

I think 'pushing back' to the stores or marketing department is more of a consumer duty, rather than a parenting duty. Once you have started attempting to influence a company, for what you percieve to be a benefit to OTHER families, then it is no longer parenting. I'd call it nannyism.

sgtbaker
7th May 2010, 07:46 AM
Lets talk about something else, what is an appropriate swimming suit for a say 8 year old girl? Most people would think a bikini is way to sexy for that age, and would instead say that they need one that covers most of their torso. Why is this? There is no practical reason for them to wear different swimming suits than little boys until they start to develop breasts at the least.

So is the idea that little girls need some top more revolting than the idea of a bikini on an 8 year old? Which view sexualizes them more?

I think bikinis on young undeveloped girls is adorable; haulter tops too. I've always bought bikinis for my girls when they were little. However, the bathingsuits/clothing did get a bit more modest when they started developing more adult-like bodies. There is a critical point between when puberty starts and their late teens where they start to notice that they have more woman-like features but are too young to understand the consequences. They think that grown men being attracted to them is a compliment to them, not a warning that the man is potentially a predator.

The fact that they respond with; "It sells" is not so much an insult on them but on the people are buying them. Some kids sneak and get away with it but some parents seem to not mind their 12/13yr old daughter wearing pants so tight that they accentuate every crease and curve or shorts so short that they need a brazillian wax to wear them. That's just creepy. I am guessing that the parents the justify buying their tween thongs by claiming it's to hide the panty line never thought to stop buying their tween such tight pants to begin with. They are right it does sell. That falls on the people buying them, not the people selling them.

I am confused about one thing thoug; I thought it was the other way around. Confidence is sexy. Hypersexualization of oneself in an indication of insecurity. One needs to dress provocatively because of a need for the attention that comes with it.

Schrodinger's Cat
7th May 2010, 07:52 AM
So, you were embarrassed about underwear lines, but not about the appearance of no underwear at all ?

I never really considered the fact people would think I wasn't wearing underwear just because they couldn't see panty lines. Who thinks like that? Who is out there looking for panty lines and saying "You're not wearing any underwear" if panty lines aren't visible? Plus, since when is there a social stigma for going commando so long as you're in pants?

I don't think whether or not a person in pants is wearing underwear is something ANYONE thinks at all about unless said underwear is visible to others, which then prompts others to think about them when they otherwise wouldn't. I got teased a couple times by boys in my class for my underwear lines showing, but I have never in my life seen someone comment to a woman/girl that they A) must not be wearing underwear if you can't see panty lines or B) that not wearing underwear with pants is a bad thing.


Your post doesn't make any sense at all to me. I mean, usually men's pants are loose enough that seeing underwear isn't an issue with men. Does this embarass you? Do you walk around thinking "People can't see my underwear, they must think think I'm going commando! The horror!"

edit - Granted, it's not like, as a fully grown adult, I am horrified by the idea of people SEEING my panty lines as I was when a little kid when other stupid little kids teased me. I just think my butt looks better in pants with thongs. And I have a nice butt. I want it to look it's best.

merentha
7th May 2010, 08:03 AM
This argument never made sense for me. Why in the name of FSM's tentacles should we outlaw anything based on how a small minority of pervs may react to it?

You remember "Airplane"? Peter Graves as an über-creepy boy-f***er? "Timmy, do you like gladiator movies?"

I guess that means all gladiator movies need to be outlawed...

Extrapolating much?

Sure, I'd probably never dress my hypothetical daughters in those type of clothes, but I'm not calling for them to be banned either. My anecdote was to highlight what I consider a creepy mentality of some parents. Dressing "sexy" implies that the effect is to arouse certain kinds of emotions associated with sexual attraction. I just think that dressing up one's pre-pubescent daughter in clothes so that she can be "sexy" is just all kinds of wrong. Not to mention encouraging the kid to accept that being "sexy" at that young age is acceptable when the child probably doesn't really understand what sex means.

On the other hand, I can accept that mom dresses up the daughter that way and tells her she looks "...just like a Mini-Me." Yeah, even if mom chooses to be less dressed than Lady Gaga.

Psi Baba
7th May 2010, 08:59 AM
Is there actually a positive argument against making this sort of underwear available other than "it's creepy"?

As others have said, "it's creepy" is merely a statement about what those articles of clothing make you think.
Here's a question: Would it be illegal for the manufacturer of these thongs to print photographs of "models" wearing their product on the package? Would a picture of a 7-year-old in a thong be considered child porn? I don't know. Personally, I don't think it would be, but I'll bet it's actionable. My point is, if printing a picture of their target market using the product could be construed as child porn, isn't the whole thing just a bit weird?

For the record, I'm not advocating a ban or other legal restriction, I'm merely arguing that the manufacturer and the retailer are behaving in an unscrupulous manner, and actually seem to be rather blithe about it.

Careyp74
7th May 2010, 10:33 AM
A week or so ago I was watching Parenthood with the wife. The one daughter, she's 13 on the show I think, received a bra in the mail from Victoria Secret. I didn't see the big deal, but then again, I really don't find lacy underwear any more sexy than regular underwear. It is just underwear.

My wife took the side of the upset controlling parents. I guess it all depends on your view of what is sexy or not. When told she couldn't go out with the bra on, she took it off and left. Without a bra. She told them.

Now that I think about it, I don't think thong underwear is any more sexy than regular underwear when worn under clothing.

Here's a question: Would it be illegal for the manufacturer of these thongs to print photographs of "models" wearing their product on the package? Would a picture of a 7-year-old in a thong be considered child porn? I don't know. Personally, I don't think it would be, but I'll bet it's actionable. My point is, if printing a picture of their target market using the product could be construed as child porn, isn't the whole thing just a bit weird?

I don't think this is what the measure of appropriate is. It would be illegal to print a picture of a woman using Massengill on the box, but that doesn't make it inappropriate for her to use.

sgtbaker
7th May 2010, 11:07 AM
I don't think this is what the measure of appropriate is. It would be illegal to print a picture of a woman using Massengill on the box, but that doesn't make it inappropriate for her to use.

On the outer packaging of all the underwear I buy my kids are pictures of kids in underwear, so I think the question is pretty valid.

Piggy
7th May 2010, 11:13 AM
If that is your definition of parenting.

What if a parent prefers to handle his/her own family, and let other families parent as they deem proper?

I think 'pushing back' to the stores or marketing department is more of a consumer duty, rather than a parenting duty. Once you have started attempting to influence a company, for what you percieve to be a benefit to OTHER families, then it is no longer parenting. I'd call it nannyism.

I never said anyone should interfere with anyone else's decisions in their own home.

What I (clearly) said was that parenting goes beyond just the rules you set for your kid.

Part of raising your kids is being involved in what goes on in your community, so that their environment is conducive to their protection and growth (altho those 2 can sometimes be at odds, which means tough choices).

It's not "nannyism" to take action against aggressive marketing of sexualized products to kids in your town, or on your TV, by letting companies know you don't like it and aren't going to support it, and by spreading the word to others. That's called social responsibility.

ETA: It's also called free market capitalism.

Vic Vega
7th May 2010, 11:14 AM
Another reason I'm glad I have two boys...

:)

Drewbot
7th May 2010, 11:23 AM
I never said anyone should interfere with anyone else's decisions in their own home.

What I (clearly) said was that parenting goes beyond just the rules you set for your kid.

Part of raising your kids is being involved in what goes on in your community, so that their environment is conducive to their protection and growth (altho those 2 can sometimes be at odds, which means tough choices).

It's not "nannyism" to take action against aggressive marketing of sexualized products to kids in your town, or on your TV, by letting companies know you don't like it and aren't going to support it, and by spreading the word to others. That's called social responsibility.

ETA: It's also called free market capitalism.

Right, you are free to do all of that, but when you declare that doing so, is part of parenting, you should make it clear that you are speaking only of yourself.

Skeptical Greg
7th May 2010, 11:29 AM
This argument never made sense for me. Why in the name of FSM's tentacles should we outlaw anything based on how a small minority of pervs may react to it?

You remember "Airplane"? Peter Graves as an über-creepy boy-f***er? "Timmy, do you like gladiator movies?"

I guess that means all gladiator movies need to be outlawed...
Where has anyone suggested outlawing anything ?

Ryokan
7th May 2010, 01:41 PM
I just think my butt looks better in pants with thongs. And I have a nice butt. I want it to look it's best.

Evidence?

Skeptical Greg
7th May 2010, 01:57 PM
I never really considered the fact people would think I wasn't wearing underwear just because they couldn't see panty lines. Who thinks like that? Who is out there looking for panty lines and saying "You're not wearing any underwear" if panty lines aren't visible? ..............


I guess you missed all the ' Underalls ' commercials ...

Piggy
7th May 2010, 03:25 PM
Right, you are free to do all of that, but when you declare that doing so, is part of parenting, you should make it clear that you are speaking only of yourself.

I'm not.

People can either accept that part of the deal, or shirk it. That's up to them. But shirking is shirking.

Parenting is not just setting rules for your kids, it's not just what you do in your house. It's bigger than that.

Participating in your community, in your state, in your nation, even the world if you have a chance, is part of what you do for your kids. It's part of being a parent, part of raising kids.

Sophronius
7th May 2010, 03:35 PM
And that's objective fact, now is it?

What handbook of absolute truth did that one come from? It must be one I haven't read before.

Dorian Gray
7th May 2010, 04:10 PM
What exactly is the fuss about? Is this kind of like the Superbowl nipple thing?Edited, breach of Rules 0 & 12.

Dorian Gray
7th May 2010, 04:13 PM
I'm more disturbed you're reading a blog called "pigtailpals" than by anything Kohl's is selling. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/raise.gif Then you just stick to your NAMBLA blog.

Dorian Gray
7th May 2010, 04:15 PM
I agree with you, Sophronius.

They're wearing G-Strings, so what? It's still a pre-teen in underwear. I remember running around without underwear as a pre-teen just because it was comfortable.

Sorry, to me, if someone is outraged by having a pre-teen wear a G-String then the outraged person is guilty of seeing the child in a sexual way, and further, trying to get other people to see children in G-Strings in a sexual way.
So what some people call 'child pornography' must just be nekkid kids to you. Other people are simply trying to get you to see nekkid kids in a sexual way.

Right? ;)

Skeptical Greg
7th May 2010, 04:27 PM
And that's objective fact, now is it?

What handbook of absolute truth did that one come from? It must be one I haven't read before.You mean that it's not from the same book of absolute truth that says, when you give pocket money to kids, they have the right to spend it on whatever they want ? At least when it comes to underwear ...

Schrodinger's Cat
7th May 2010, 04:38 PM
I guess you missed all the ' Underalls ' commercials ...

<-------- see avatar pic


I am not middle aged, and therefor have no idea what underalls are.

I wikipedia-d it though. What's your point? That back then, women said underalls made it look like they weren't wearing panties? But they were, they were wearing underalls. And today there are many many kinds of underwear that hide panty lines. Just because it LOOKS like you're not wearing panties, in today's day in age, is absolutely not indicative of lack of panties. Also, again, in MODERN DAY, it's not considered racy to not be wearing underwear with pants.

Maybe in the 1970s it was considered "racy" to not have panty lines and people actually thought you weren't wearing underwear, but that's not the case anymore. I was concerned about MY panty lines twenty years after these commercials came out and long after many non visible underwear products had come into existance. Believe it or not, I actually base my fashion sense off the times I live in, not the time my mom lived in. I also am not embarassed by my lack of a girdle and panty hose. ;)

fitzgibbon
7th May 2010, 05:05 PM
I certainly hope not.

It's their own money. The whole point of giving them pocket money is so that they can spend it for themselves (and hopefully learn something from it). If you then decide for them what they are allowed to buy with it, that kind of defeats the point.

Yeah but the reality of growing up is that there isn't a "Eureka" moment where they go from feckless to proper and fully-formed in their judgment. And it's that flexible time where they're most at risk of having their judgment unduly influenced by those who'd influence for mercenary motives.

Children are an on-going project throughout their lives. Some can have the lines cast off from the mother ship sooner than others. Some are tethered for their whole lives. But parents have to accept that part of their responsibilities going forward involved passing moments of discomfort that help their children develop judgment.

It isn't like we drop a clutch of hatchlings and Devil-take-the-hindmost. We have an obligation to assist in forming judgment on their part. Their judgment won't match ours anymore than ours matched our parents'. But we do owe them the exposure to previous experience so that they aren't doomed to repeat history.

Piggy
7th May 2010, 05:15 PM
And that's objective fact, now is it?

What handbook of absolute truth did that one come from? It must be one I haven't read before.

Oh jeez.... Look pal, this is a Social Issues forum thread on an obviously subjective topic. I don't think it's necessary for us to put up neon signs to distinguish between data and opinion.

Gimme a break.

Schrodinger's Cat
7th May 2010, 05:50 PM
Moderated content removed.

okay, I'm going to try and explain this again. I understand this stuff isn't common knowledge to guys so I understand your position. However, to again make you all disgustingly aware of reality for girls...



I know in those commercials, they always use a light blue fluid to represent a woman's menstrual blood. But in reality, menstrual blood is very dark red and not only that, it's chunky because your uterine lining is coming out. Do you know how hard to get chunky menstrual blood stains out of your underwear? It's like, ridiculously hard. That crap does not come out.

With regular sized underwear, panty liners (when tampons are used) and pads often do not fill the entire width of the underwear, so that nasty chunky blood can leak on the sides and stain them. With thongs, the pads and panty liners completely cover the surface area of the underwear. Also, thongs give a snugger fit so the liner is right up against you, which also better prevents leaks.

My mom got me thongs when I was a pre teen and she was the most uptight prim and proper catholic you could ever meet. It had nothing to do with being sexy and everything to do with me not wanting my panty lines to show and not wanting to try and scrub period stains out of my underwear.

Though of course, the ones she got me were plain and cotton, not lacy sexy G strings. But thongs themselves serve a utilitarian purpose, not just an aesthetic one.

Piggy - love the avatar!

Sophronius
7th May 2010, 06:03 PM
Oh jeez.... Look pal, this is a Social Issues forum thread on an obviously subjective topic. I don't think it's necessary for us to put up neon signs to distinguish between data and opinion.

Gimme a break.

That was in response to you saying that it was not, in fact, your opinion but rather fact.


Anyway, I've been making way too big a deal out of this, so sorry to all for being overly snappy in this thread.

Kevin_Lowe
7th May 2010, 06:26 PM
So if the girl buys condoms

If a kid is old enough to want them, heck yes they should have them. Parents might well want to discourage them from using them, but far better for the kids to have having protected sex if they are sexually active.

Edited; to graphic for public areas of the Forum.

, drugs, etc., with her own money, you don't see the problem?

Drugs, not so much.

Piggy
7th May 2010, 06:35 PM
Piggy - love the avatar!

Thanks. I think they did a tremendous job with that film. I know it sometimes gets criticized because the kids were not professional actors, but to me, that just made them look and act more like real kids.

Never saw the remake. No desire to, really.

For me, Piggy will always be Hugh Edwards.

And Golding's line at the end of the book about Ralph crying for Piggy always breaks my heart. Yes, he was crying about other things, too, but that bit, for me, was the most poignant.

"Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man's heart, and the fall through the air of the true, wise friend called Piggy."

ETA: Holy ****... Ralph (James Aubrey) just died last month!

Schrodinger's Cat
7th May 2010, 06:38 PM
Thanks. I think they did a tremendous job with that film. I know it sometimes gets criticized because the kids were not professional actors, but to me, that just made them look and act more like real kids.

Never saw the remake. No desire to, really.

For me, Piggy will always be Hugh Edwards.

And Golding's line at the end of the book about Ralph crying for Piggy always breaks my heart. Yes, he was crying about other things, too, but that bit, for me, was the most poignant.

"Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man's heart, and the fall through the air of the true, wise friend called Piggy."


ETA: Holy ****... Ralph (James Aubrey) just died last month!

Also never saw the remake. And that last line is just fantastic.

quarky
7th May 2010, 08:33 PM
What's next in fashion for edgy teens. The boys have done the underware band showing thing for awhile, with the baggy pants, while the girls have been hiding theirs.
Both, I'm told, are into removed pubic hair, but hell if I really know, and not going to ask any time soon.

When "Barfly" with Mickey Rourke came out, I was so sure that filthy underware was going to be the next big thing, I quit washing mine.

Maybe he was too far ahead of the curve; too organic for mass consumption.

I'm thinking undies with fake stains on them, similar to funky jeans with rips, except blood stains with some urine stain, and a tasteful smattering of semen and fecal stains.
This could be done in a design that looked like the Shroud of Turin, for the Christian kids.

Gratuitously disgusting, or rational extrapolation? Teens tend to settle in right where it pushes the most buttons of the adults. We may have to pretend to be disgusted with their latest fads just so they don't have to find one that really irks us.

Or is that cheating?

Piggy
7th May 2010, 09:59 PM
Both, I'm told, are into removed pubic hair, but hell if I really know, and not going to ask any time soon.

That's true. And I find it quite disturbing. It seems the young'uns these days are distancing themselves from their own humanity.

Sure, it's always been the case that kids find ways to identify themselves against their parents and grandparents.

But what's happening now goes beyond that. Their own biology has become alien to them.

It does not bode well.

Ryokan
8th May 2010, 06:32 AM
So what some people call 'child pornography' must just be nekkid kids to you. Other people are simply trying to get you to see nekkid kids in a sexual way.

Right? ;)

I would actually claim that there's a huge difference between simply pictures of 'nekkid' kids and child pornography.

Nakedness =/= pornography.

Ryokan
8th May 2010, 06:37 AM
Both, I'm told, are into removed pubic hair, but hell if I really know, and not going to ask any time soon.

That's true. And I find it quite disturbing. It seems the young'uns these days are distancing themselves from their own humanity.

Sure, it's always been the case that kids find ways to identify themselves against their parents and grandparents.

But what's happening now goes beyond that. Their own biology has become alien to them.

It does not bode well.

Is the removing of the hair of the face, legs and armpits also a sign of the end of civilization?

Ron_Tomkins
8th May 2010, 08:31 AM
<-------- see avatar pic

Teaser ;)

Piggy
8th May 2010, 03:26 PM
Is the removing of the hair of the face, legs and armpits also a sign of the end of civilization?

Civilization?

Perhaps you could argue that civiliation gets a boost from all this.

I'm into grooming, myself. No problem there.

But when it gets to the point where the removal of all body hair becomes the accepted norm... that just skeeves me out a little. Seems to me, that takes things to the point where folks are alienating themselves from their own bodies.

But as always, ymmv.

bluesjnr
8th May 2010, 03:43 PM
Edited, inappropriate content for public areas of the Forum removed

Have you lost your freakin' mind, coming away with this ridiculous strawman? How can you possibly have arrived at this conclusion?

If this is your attempt at humour then you are way off the mark.

I think your infantile obsessions are starting to affect your judgement.

Nice "If I don't see it it doesn't exist" attitude you have there.

Assuming you are not joking, precisely what is it that I'm refusing to acknowledge?

What kind of pervert implies that I must now ask pre-teen girls to let me see their underwear in order to see whatever it is that you believe I'm missing?

quarky
8th May 2010, 10:30 PM
Civilization?

Perhaps you could argue that civiliation gets a boost from all this.

I'm into grooming, myself. No problem there.

But when it gets to the point where the removal of all body hair becomes the accepted norm... that just skeeves me out a little. Seems to me, that takes things to the point where folks are alienating themselves from their own bodies.

But as always, ymmv.

Yeah, me too.
Weird, suddenly being old fashioned, after a life of ribald rebellion.

I wrote this line years ago, mostly for myself, but I think its good enough to repeat:

"We whom welcome change should continue to do so after it comes."

Piggy
9th May 2010, 09:48 AM
Yeah, me too.
Weird, suddenly being old fashioned, after a life of ribald rebellion.

I wrote this line years ago, mostly for myself, but I think its good enough to repeat:

"We whom welcome change should continue to do so after it comes."

Yeah, but then there's a great deal of validity to this sentiment as well, when we look back at our younger selves:

"What the **** was I thinking?" ;)

Nosi
9th May 2010, 09:34 PM
Originally Posted by quarky:
Both, I'm told, are into removed pubic hair, but hell if I really know, and not going to ask any time soon.
Originally Posted by Piggy:
That's true. And I find it quite disturbing. It seems the young'uns these days are distancing themselves from their own humanity.

Sure, it's always been the case that kids find ways to identify themselves against their parents and grandparents.

But what's happening now goes beyond that. Their own biology has become alien to them.

It does not bode well.

Is the removing of the hair of the face, legs and armpits also a sign of the end of civilization?

I think it's less complicated than that. It's fashion. We also have groomed hair down there, like groomed shrubs rather than wild bushes.

uk_dave
10th May 2010, 12:31 AM
I

I would send employees to towns that were doing pretty well, and go to a few P.T.A. meetings, as a spy of sorts, to see what the high school kids parents were wearing.

Next, design a bunch of stuff that is pretty much the opposite of there look.



So, the answer appears to be to get the moms/mums to dress slutty.

I can live with that.

Darth Rotor
10th May 2010, 06:19 AM
But if humans are turning off to reproductive sex, as they should be, all manner of twisted crap will fill in that gap.
Neat post, but I have to ask about your closer:

Which humans are doing this? If all humans, the species dies out in less than a century.

pgwenthold
10th May 2010, 08:00 AM
Neat post, but I have to ask about your closer:

Which humans are doing this? If all humans, the species dies out in less than a century.

I wonder, and? So what if it did?

If humans, collectively as a species, decided to not perpetuate, what would be the problem?

I won't be here. My kids won't be here. None of my relatives will be here. They'll all be dead. So why should I care that humans survive?

Should people be required to procreate just to perpetuate the species, even if they don't want to?

cienaños
10th May 2010, 08:09 AM
I don't know about you guys, but I can't wait to shirk my parenting responsibilities onto the textile industry.

quarky
10th May 2010, 09:09 AM
Neat post, but I have to ask about your closer:

Which humans are doing this? If all humans, the species dies out in less than a century.

A few bad apples will likely sneek out behind the barn and experiment, for historical curiosity. Like a Civil War re-enactment, with grunting sounds.

Careyp74
10th May 2010, 10:20 AM
On the outer packaging of all the underwear I buy my kids are pictures of kids in underwear, so I think the question is pretty valid.

OK, so, hypothetically, if kids pictured in G-string underwear is illegal, then they shouldn't sell g-string underwear to kids, because they wouldn't be able to put a picture of it on the front of the packaging?

Nosi
10th May 2010, 10:27 AM
Neat post, but I have to ask about your closer:

Which humans are doing this? If all humans, the species dies out in less than a century.

At six billion and counting, we are so in no danger of dying out!:rolleyes:

Polaris
10th May 2010, 12:30 PM
OK, so, hypothetically, if kids pictured in G-string underwear is illegal, then they shouldn't sell g-string underwear to kids, because they wouldn't be able to put a picture of it on the front of the packaging?

Not necessarily. It wouldn't be the only ass-backwards result of existing laws. Chalk this up to being in the same absurdity as a 16 year old boy and girl having sex (age of consent laws permitting). That's not illegal, but if they take pictures of each other or make a video of the session, they're felonious child-pornographers.

Darth Rotor
10th May 2010, 01:00 PM
Should people be required to procreate just to perpetuate the species, even if they don't want to?
The little point in quarky's post was the idea of being required NOT to procreate.

I prefer to leave it to volition.

DR

Piggy
10th May 2010, 04:36 PM
I don't know about you guys, but I can't wait to shirk my parenting responsibilities onto the textile industry.

So, somehow, it's embracing our personal responsibilities to decide that we have no role at all to play in the free market, and are limited in what we can do to simply telling our kids that they have to deal with it?

I don't think so.

When you decide where to buy a house based on the quality of schools, crime rates, and such, that's part of parenting.

If law enforcement is lax, and minors can routinely buy alcohol at local stores, then pressuring the city to step up enforcement of those laws is also part of parenting.

If drug dealing is becoming a problem in your neighborhood, getting together with other parents to do something about it is also parenting.

If a local industry is dumping toxins into a body of water where kids swim, pressuring them to clean it up is parenting, as well.

This is just common sense.

Parenting is much broader than simply telling your kids they need to make good choices. It also includes taking steps to ensure they have a safe and healthy environment to grow up in.

Of course, if you are ok with aggressive marketing of sexualized products to pre-pubescent and pubescent kids, well, all right then, you got no problem to confront.

But it's a bizarre notion to think that participating in the free market is somehow "nannying".

As I understand the term, nannying means giving the government the right (even the exclusive right) to make decisions for adult citizens which they should be making for themselves.

But that's not what we're talking about here.

We're talking about parents actively participating in the free market in order to protect their kids and create a healthy environment.

In addition, it sets an example for them, showing them that they're not simply passive "consumers", but are citizens with rights and responsibilities who are active agents within our free market system.

Piggy
10th May 2010, 04:40 PM
Not necessarily. It wouldn't be the only ass-backwards result of existing laws. Chalk this up to being in the same absurdity as a 16 year old boy and girl having sex (age of consent laws permitting). That's not illegal, but if they take pictures of each other or make a video of the session, they're felonious child-pornographers.

The courts and legislatures are working that out now. Unfortunately, our CP laws are from the pre-sexting era. It's going to take some time to figure out how to change those laws so we don't end up treating kids like child-pornographers for simply making stupid teenage decisions like taking nude photos of themselves and sending them to boy/girlfriends, or passing those photos on to other kids.

That's a delicate task.

Polaris
10th May 2010, 07:19 PM
The courts and legislatures are working that out now. Unfortunately, our CP laws are from the pre-sexting era. It's going to take some time to figure out how to change those laws so we don't end up treating kids like child-pornographers for simply making stupid teenage decisions like taking nude photos of themselves and sending them to boy/girlfriends, or passing those photos on to other kids.

That's a delicate task.

Let's hope they don't err on the side of legalism the same way they usually do with these kind of ticklish issues. Turning it into another case that puts the hypothetical teens in my example in the same shoes as the 19 year old who's seen in the same light as pedophiles and rapists because his 17-year old girlfriend's dad had him arrested doesn't do anybody any good.

Surely the involvement of commerce and moneymaking should factor into what qualifies as "child porn". Granted that wouldn't affect scum who do it for free or their own purposes, but really this is turning into a subject for another thread.

Piggy
10th May 2010, 07:39 PM
Let's hope they don't err on the side of legalism the same way they usually do with these kind of ticklish issues. Turning it into another case that puts the hypothetical teens in my example in the same shoes as the 19 year old who's seen in the same light as pedophiles and rapists because his 17-year old girlfriend's dad had him arrested doesn't do anybody any good.

Surely the involvement of commerce and moneymaking should factor into what qualifies as "child porn". Granted that wouldn't affect scum who do it for free or their own purposes, but really this is turning into a subject for another thread.

Well, if they wanted to err on the side of legalism, they could just leave things as they are.

Admittedly this is speculation on my part, but I think the impetus to reform current laws as they apply to sexting, for example, is directly related to the fact that affluent white kids -- whose parents are likely to be active in prestigious districts, and even elected representatives -- are getting caught up in this.

I mean, look, we still don't have parity between sentences for powder and crack cocaine. The recent reforms have only brought down sentences for crack to a mere 18 times those for powder, despite the fact that it's the same damn drug. The only difference is the demographics of the users.

But lots of affluent white kids have cell phones with cameras in them.

So we're seeing a serious look being taken at revising the laws so that a 15 year old girl sending pictures of her bare body to her boyfriend is no longer treated the same as a 45 year old man trading explicit photos of 8-year-olds having sex.

Btw, most states now have so-called Romeo and Juliet laws which provide for a minimum age difference so that a 19/17 couple will not incur legal penalties, but a 30 year old man seducing a 16yo will.

And I disagree with you that profit should have anything to do with the definition of CP. The bulk of the CP market is a barter system. After all, that requirement serves as a gatekeeper. If you want to get into the game and receive original content, which these guys prize above all else, you have to provide your own -- which the cops can't legally do.

In fact, the guys who are active in the darkest corners of the Web put each other to the test. For example, one might ask another to have his victim perform very specific acts so that he knows the content is original, and the provider will often open the series with shots in which the victim has "dedication" statements written on their body, or held up on previously crumpled paper (harder to Photoshop) incorporating the requester's online handle.

If you can stomach it, you might want to read "Caught In The Web", which describes how international law enforcement co-operation brought down some of the most notorious rings who used such tactics. It's not the best-written book you'll ever read, but it does a very good job of avoiding any lapses into exploitation of the victims -- no lurid descriptions of exactly what was going on -- and it gives you hope that something can be done.

gumboot
10th May 2010, 10:41 PM
Far as I can see it's all pretty straight forward.

As a parent you have a right to determine and manage matters relating to your own child. As a parent you do not have a right to dictate how anyone else manages matters relating to their child (presuming such matters to be within the limits of the law).

If you don't want your child wearing thongs, don't buy them any, and manage them in such a way that they don't get any via other means. That's all you can and should do.

If other parents do want their children wearing thongs (or don't care), that's up to them to decide and manage, not you. If there's a market, a company will provide them. If there's no market, a company will not provide them.

End of story.

Commercial companies are not in the business of reinforcing your moral values. Nor should they be.

I'm not a parent, but I'd probably not let a hypothetical child of mine wear thongs and "sexy" underwear until she was 16. However I don't care if other parents do allow it. Their business, not mine.

I also agree with others that I have no interest whatsoever in what young girls are wearing under their pants. I think anyone who does have an interest in what young girls (other than sellers of what young girls wear under their clothes and parents of young girls in relation to what their own child is wearing) are wearing under their pants is, indeed, creepy.

cienaños
11th May 2010, 04:16 AM
So, somehow, it's embracing our personal responsibilities to decide that we have no role at all to play in the free market, and are limited in what we can do to simply telling our kids that they have to deal with it?

I don't think so.

When you decide where to buy a house based on the quality of schools, crime rates, and such, that's part of parenting.

If law enforcement is lax, and minors can routinely buy alcohol at local stores, then pressuring the city to step up enforcement of those laws is also part of parenting.

If drug dealing is becoming a problem in your neighborhood, getting together with other parents to do something about it is also parenting.

If a local industry is dumping toxins into a body of water where kids swim, pressuring them to clean it up is parenting, as well.

This is just common sense.

Parenting is much broader than simply telling your kids they need to make good choices. It also includes taking steps to ensure they have a safe and healthy environment to grow up in.

Of course, if you are ok with aggressive marketing of sexualized products to pre-pubescent and pubescent kids, well, all right then, you got no problem to confront.

But it's a bizarre notion to think that participating in the free market is somehow "nannying".

As I understand the term, nannying means giving the government the right (even the exclusive right) to make decisions for adult citizens which they should be making for themselves.

But that's not what we're talking about here.

We're talking about parents actively participating in the free market in order to protect their kids and create a healthy environment.

In addition, it sets an example for them, showing them that they're not simply passive "consumers", but are citizens with rights and responsibilities who are active agents within our free market system.

I think you dropped this
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/oz/images/vc55.jpg
Breach of Rule 4 removed; please do not hotlink images unless the site expressly allows.

Like I was saying, regarding the more trivial matters, I'm gonna go with the whole "teach my kids to think critically" thing. It's an all inclusive, one fell swoop method. They'll be smarter and better for it.

Plus, think of all the time I'll save from not having to attend all those *city g-string meetings! Perhaps a little "catch" with cienanos jr would be time well spent instead.

*on second thought...

Careyp74
11th May 2010, 05:16 AM
Not necessarily. It wouldn't be the only ass-backwards result of existing laws. Chalk this up to being in the same absurdity as a 16 year old boy and girl having sex (age of consent laws permitting). That's not illegal, but if they take pictures of each other or make a video of the session, they're felonious child-pornographers.

Although I feel there may be a derail and split in the near future, I will answer this. Creating pictures and video of underage sex is rightfully illegal, no matter the age of the creator. There is no way to tell what the intent is, perhaps sale or distribution, so the law is just.

My other response would be- What packaging are they going to put these pictures on for display to the public? Your answer makes it seem as though you feel that the underwear manufacturers should be allowed to put child pornography on the packaging (in our hypothetical) why, because it is an attempt to sell underwear, not distribute child pornography?

ETA:

Like I was saying, regarding the more trivial matters, I'm gonna go with the whole "teach my kids to think critically" thing. It's an all inclusive, one fell swoop method. They'll be smarter and better for it.

Plus, think of all the time I'll save from not having to attend all those *city g-string meetings! Perhaps a little "catch" with cienanos jr would be time well spent instead.

*on second thought...

What exactly was the strawman that Piggy created there?

I agree that a lot of parents are not doing their part as parents, but many do, and they do all that they can, while their kids are still influenced by media like television and magazines. Advertisers are not playing a fair game, we shouldn't just sit by and blame the parents.

Piggy
11th May 2010, 05:53 AM
No, my argument was not a strawman. Your post was clearly a response to mine, and that's where I picked it up.


Like I was saying, regarding the more trivial matters, I'm gonna go with the whole "teach my kids to think critically" thing. It's an all inclusive, one fell swoop method. They'll be smarter and better for it.

Plus, think of all the time I'll save from not having to attend all those *city g-string meetings! Perhaps a little "catch" with cienanos jr would be time well spent instead.

*on second thought...

Now, to address your straw man....

I never advocated failing to teach kids to think critically, or playing catch with them.

What I am clearly saying is that this is not the limit of parental responsibility.

If and when you care to actually address that point, we can discuss it further.

Piggy
11th May 2010, 05:59 AM
Far as I can see it's all pretty straight forward.

As a parent you have a right to determine and manage matters relating to your own child. As a parent you do not have a right to dictate how anyone else manages matters relating to their child (presuming such matters to be within the limits of the law).

If you don't want your child wearing thongs, don't buy them any, and manage them in such a way that they don't get any via other means. That's all you can and should do.

If other parents do want their children wearing thongs (or don't care), that's up to them to decide and manage, not you. If there's a market, a company will provide them. If there's no market, a company will not provide them.

End of story.

Has anyone here advocated that any parents go and tell other parents what to do?

I don't believe so.

What we're talking about is participating in the free market system when corporations act irresponsibly.

If you have no problem with aggressive marketing of sexualized products to little girls, then you're free to go to Kohl's and call the manager over to the Candie's display and say, "Way to go! Gimme more o' that!"

If other parents believe that such marketing is harmful to kids, they have a right to say something quite different, and take their business elsewhere.

To say that those who object to what Candie's and Kohl's are doing should only silently take their business elsewhere, that (for reasons no one has been able to explain here) they should not also tell those companies that they object to their efforts to push sexualized products on little girls, is a bit ridiculous.

The free market works best when we participate actively.

3point14
11th May 2010, 06:51 AM
Question:

If this underwear is sexualising pre-teen girls, can I ask who to? Themselves their parents or possibly their siblings? Aren't these the only people that are likely to ever find out? Whose reaction are we afraid of here?

Hellbound
11th May 2010, 06:58 AM
Question:

If this underwear is sexualising pre-teen girls, can I ask who to? Themselves their parents or possibly their siblings? Aren't these the only people that are likely to ever find out? Whose reaction are we afraid of here?

Actually, for me it's the bolded word above that's a key issue.

Regardless of how some individuals view them, thongs and such are regarded as sexual clothing by the majority of people. And frankly, I do NOT think my little girl should be thinking of herself as a sexual creature when 8 or 10 years old.

Does this happen? I'm sure it does sometimes, but I'm also not sure it does all the time. And I don't know how much of a role buying the kid "sexy" underwear plays in that. But that's the issue I'd be concerned about.

3point14
11th May 2010, 07:03 AM
Actually, for me it's the bolded word above that's a key issue.

Regardless of how some individuals view them, thongs and such are regarded as sexual clothing by the majority of people. And frankly, I do NOT think my little girl should be thinking of herself as a sexual creature when 8 or 10 years old.

Does this happen? I'm sure it does sometimes, but I'm also not sure it does all the time. And I don't know how much of a role buying the kid "sexy" underwear plays in that. But that's the issue I'd be concerned about.

This implies a degree of knowledge in advance of the situation on behalf of the child, I think. How does a pre teen girl know that a g-string is supposed ot be sexy. If she doesn't, then it doesn't matter. If she does then surely the damage has already been done?

For the record, I too find it 'creepy', but i find Yorkshire Terriers creepy too but that's just my irrational reaction and no reason to ban Yorkshire Terriers (althought they should be)

Hellbound
11th May 2010, 07:22 AM
This implies a degree of knowledge in advance of the situation on behalf of the child, I think. How does a pre teen girl know that a g-string is supposed ot be sexy. If she doesn't, then it doesn't matter. If she does then surely the damage has already been done?

For the record, I too find it 'creepy', but i find Yorkshire Terriers creepy too but that's just my irrational reaction and no reason to ban Yorkshire Terriers (althought they should be)

Well, kids see things. There's a difference in knowing that adults regard something as sexy, and in thinking that something is for you as well. And kids will figure it out...tehy see and hear a lot more than we realize.

But talking about kids aren't supposed to know if it's sexy, then that defeats the purpose others were talking about in giving them self-confidence and such. If that's the case, why do they need something like that? If they don't understand that it's supposed to be sexy, or something along those lines (even if they don't fully understand it), then how is this going to do anything for them that regular underwear (like maybe the Disney Princess underwear my daughter likes so much) won't?

I'm not calling for a ban on it, mind you, but I do think it's over-the-top, and I wouldn't buy it for my child, and I see no problem in letting the store/company know my feelings. If others want to, that's their business.

Careyp74
11th May 2010, 07:43 AM
This implies a degree of knowledge in advance of the situation on behalf of the child, I think. How does a pre teen girl know that a g-string is supposed ot be sexy. If she doesn't, then it doesn't matter. If she does then surely the damage has already been done?

For the record, I too find it 'creepy', but i find Yorkshire Terriers creepy too but that's just my irrational reaction and no reason to ban Yorkshire Terriers (althought they should be)

I was thinking along the same lines as this. I was actually contemplating whether or not there is a risk in creating a situation by not allowing the child to wear them. What is the reason that you give when they ask "why not?"

They don't want to wear them because they are sexy, they want to wear them because Brittney Spears endorses them, and because their friends are wearing them.

Wow, I just read your last line. Yesterday on a walk with my wife and dog, she (my wife) commented on why anyone would want a weird looking dog like the one we just saw. I think she might have even said creepy. It wasn't a Yorkie, but a Scottie. Almost the same thing though.

pgwenthold
11th May 2010, 07:45 AM
Well, kids see things. There's a difference in knowing that adults regard something as sexy, and in thinking that something is for you as well. And kids will figure it out...tehy see and hear a lot more than we realize.

The question I come to is, why would these girls WANT to wear a G-string or (especially) thong underwear? My impression of these things (from what I've been told ;)) is that they aren't the most comfortable things to wear, especially at first, and we might call them an "acquired comfort." So little girls want them because they have heard that if you wear them a while, they don't feel uncomfortable?

No, there is more to it. Schrodinger's Cat has indicated that she wears them because she "just thinks they look better" but I have to say, that is really begging the question in my book. Why do they look better? Because they don't have panty lines? What's wrong with panty lines? They don't look good. Why not?

I think it really is a question of why our society finds certain things attractive, and how that is adopted by our children.

Darth Rotor
11th May 2010, 07:47 AM
I was thinking along the same lines as this. I was actually contemplating whether or not there is a risk in creating a situation by not allowing the child to wear them. What is the reason that you give when they ask "why not?"
You are not required to give a reason, you are authority, however, giving a reason is often a good idea. Helps them understand value decisions.
They don't want to wear them because they are sexy, they want to wear them because Brittney Spears endorses them, and because their friends are wearing them.
A response to that is "Brittney Spears is a basket case, and sells herself as a tramp. You aren't going to dress like one coming out of my house." (Granted, as this is underwear, you might ask her why she is comparing underwear with her classmates in the first place ... I mean, it's underwear).

You can assign a value to the whole Brittney Spears marketing appeal, and if the child is old enough (nine or ten) explain what the marketing issue is. You can also explain how her father acted as pimp for his daughter-marketed-as-jailbait, and that you don't feel like imitating a pimp. If she doesn't know what a pimp is, explain that as well.

You also point out that the subject is closed.

DR

3point14
11th May 2010, 08:32 AM
Well, kids see things. There's a difference in knowing that adults regard something as sexy, and in thinking that something is for you as well. And kids will figure it out...tehy see and hear a lot more than we realize.

But talking about kids aren't supposed to know if it's sexy, then that defeats the purpose others were talking about in giving them self-confidence and such. If that's the case, why do they need something like that? If they don't understand that it's supposed to be sexy, or something along those lines (even if they don't fully understand it), then how is this going to do anything for them that regular underwear (like maybe the Disney Princess underwear my daughter likes so much) won't?

I'm not calling for a ban on it, mind you, but I do think it's over-the-top, and I wouldn't buy it for my child, and I see no problem in letting the store/company know my feelings. If others want to, that's their business.


So they already know that it's sexy due to - what? How have they obtained the knowledge in advance? Yes, kids pick up on things rapidly, and probably far more subtle things that most adults are even remotely aware of, but how do they go from a state of innocence to 'I want to wear a g-string because it's sexy'?

What I think I'm trying to say (and I am thinking as I type, so bear with me) is that this underwear in itself is not a problem, but the culture that surrounds it that constantly uses sex to sell things to youth of any age* is.

If it's okay as a pre-teen to idolise Lady Gaga and any other pop star/movie star who habitually wears next to nothing (it's not sexual if you can't see a nipple**) then surely it's okay to wear underwear which (on a full grown woman) is 'sexy', because they have been told, and will continue to be told that it's so damned important to be sexy because, with some notable exceptions, everyone the marketing and media people throw at pre-teens is sexy.


Sorry, I'm not sure I've made a point and I'm rambling now, I'll stop.



(*and at the same time tells them how bad it is to be a sexual being before you're allowed to be - go figure)

(**Who the hell decided on that rule?)

3point14
11th May 2010, 08:54 AM
<Heavily snipped>

"Brittney Spears is a basket case, and sells herself as a tramp. You aren't going to dress like one coming out of my house."
DR

I'm inclined to agree, however Brittney is rich, famous, adored by millions, rich and constantly in the media. These are all, in today's society, viewed as good things. Very difficult to persuade a child that their parent's view is the right one, when the TV and everything else in the child's life is in direct opposition.

As a society we get this cognitive dissonance thing into them early. To make sure they can deal with great gulping dollops of it later in their lives, I suppose.

cienaños
11th May 2010, 09:33 AM
No, my argument was not a strawman. Your post was clearly a response to mine, and that's where I picked it up...

Now, to address your straw man....I never advocated failing to teach kids to think critically, or playing catch with them. What I am clearly saying is that this is not the limit of parental responsibility. If and when you care to actually address that point, we can discuss it further.

No. Just no, Piggy. It isn't always about you.

cienanos: "I don't know about you guys, but I can't wait to shirk my parenting responsibilities onto the textile industry."

^^This post^^ was not a response to your anything. I was amusing myself, mostly. Cause I'm a narcissist.

It was meant as a silly remark addressing the silly nature of the issue. It's clothing. You don't need the cops or city council or the district attorney on this. Reminds me of the Grand Theft Auto brigade from a few years back.

It's simple misplacement. Like this: The "village," among other things, should have public schooling in mind. That's a "village" job. The "parent," among other things, can handle the selection of attire.

Piggy
11th May 2010, 11:57 AM
No. Just no, Piggy. It isn't always about you.

No, it's not always about me, but when you use a phrase in your post which has only been used on this thread in my previous post, and when clearly your post is a sarcastic response to mine, then please, don't play this silly little game of pretending that you weren't responding to me.

Darth Rotor
11th May 2010, 12:07 PM
I'm inclined to agree, however Brittney is rich, famous, adored by millions, rich and constantly in the media. These are all, in today's society, viewed as good things. Very difficult to persuade a child that their parent's view is the right one, when the TV and everything else in the child's life is in direct opposition.

As a society we get this cognitive dissonance thing into them early. To make sure they can deal with great gulping dollops of it later in their lives, I suppose.
I appreciate that problem, and my wife moreso. She surprised me a bit by being far tougher on that score than my first instinct was.

We got to deal with nine year old girl who, with her little friends, thought The Spice Girls were "all that and a bag of chips" in the mid-late nineties. They wanted to engage in imitative behavior. Wonderful challenge for us both.

We were more than ready when the Spears crap showed up shortly thereafter.

DR

cienaños
11th May 2010, 12:15 PM
No, it's not always about me, but when you use a phrase in your post which has only been used on this thread in my previous post, and when clearly your post is a sarcastic response to mine, then please, don't play this silly little game of pretending that you weren't responding to me.

Hilarious.

Point me to what it is you're referring to then you madman!

Thunder
11th May 2010, 12:23 PM
suggestion: organize a boycott.

Piggy
11th May 2010, 12:47 PM
Hilarious.

Point me to what it is you're referring to then you madman!

So... you simply came up with this bit out of the blue?

"I don't know about you guys, but I can't wait to shirk my parenting responsibilities onto the textile industry."

It wasn't a sarcastic response to this?

People can either accept that part of the deal, or shirk it. That's up to them. But shirking is shirking.

Parenting is not just setting rules for your kids, it's not just what you do in your house. It's bigger than that.

Participating in your community, in your state, in your nation, even the world if you have a chance, is part of what you do for your kids. It's part of being a parent, part of raising kids.

You just thought up that sentence of yours and posted it there, hadn't read my previous post with the phrase in it, didn't intend to respond to it?

U-huh....

Hannibal
11th May 2010, 01:12 PM
Piggy are you freaking out again like you did on Trent?

Count to 10 mate, count to 10

cienaños
11th May 2010, 01:16 PM
So... you simply came up with this bit out of the blue? [...] It wasn't a sarcastic response to this? [...] You just thought up that sentence of yours and posted it there, hadn't read my previous post with the phrase in it, didn't intend to respond to it?

U-huh....

That's amazing! House, is that you? I used "shirk," a word trademarked by you - a word so out of place in a discussion such as this one, then I done went and landed in one of only two actual positions found on this thread. Nice work detective. I'm your man!

This is all you need to believe me: Read what I wrote before this 'reveal post' of yours. There's not much of a distance between what you're saying and what I'm saying.

I can also cross my heart and hope to die if that helps.

Polaris
11th May 2010, 02:59 PM
Although I feel there may be a derail and split in the near future, I will answer this. Creating pictures and video of underage sex is rightfully illegal, no matter the age of the creator. There is no way to tell what the intent is, perhaps sale or distribution, so the law is just.

My other response would be- What packaging are they going to put these pictures on for display to the public? Your answer makes it seem as though you feel that the underwear manufacturers should be allowed to put child pornography on the packaging (in our hypothetical) why, because it is an attempt to sell underwear, not distribute child pornography?


I disagree, but I'll save my response to your first paragraph for the appropriate thread, should it arise (again?) rather than derail the thread.

Showing the photos on the packaging wouldn't be child pornography any more than showing photos of adults wearing underwear on the packaging it is sold in is ordinary pornography. There's a huge difference between what would be on the packages you're mentioning (no worse than showing a baby's bottom in a diaper commercial) and actual child pornography. I think you already know this.

It's not a perfect analogy, admittedly, but my point stands: the letter of the law in the two-teenagers example does not reflect the spirit of the law, an it'd be the same here. In fact, I'd say calling the packaging on the subject of the OP (which in my mind would probably be a kid standing there wearing them) "child pornography" would be stretching the definition so far as to make it meaningless. I don't know what the packaging looks like on kids' underwear today, as I haven't been in a section that sells it since I wore it myself, probably, but it's probably as tame as what would be put on the subject's packaging - meaning if anyone finds it arousing, they've already got plenty of material. Are you going to censor all images of children that could possibly arouse a pedophile?

Of course, that's provided there'd be a photo on the package at all, at least of the item in use. It's not like tampons or hemmorhoid cream have photos on their packaging. If I were the manufacturer I'd take this route, personally.

Piggy
11th May 2010, 04:29 PM
Piggy are you freaking out again like you did on Trent?

Count to 10 mate, count to 10

No, I'm not.

Just don't project a strident tone on what I type here. I'm quite calm.

I just find it a bit ridiculous that cienanos (that handle makes me chuckle, btw, b/c in Spanish it means "100 ********") is trying to say that my post was somehow a straw man b/c he wasn't actually responding to my earlier post, which is implausible to say the least.

Edited, breach of Rule 10.

Piggy
11th May 2010, 04:31 PM
That's amazing! House, is that you? I used "shirk," a word trademarked by you - a word so out of place in a discussion such as this one, then I done went and landed in one of only two actual positions found on this thread. Nice work detective. I'm your man!

This is all you need to believe me: Read what I wrote before this 'reveal post' of yours. There's not much of a distance between what you're saying and what I'm saying.

I can also cross my heart and hope to die if that helps.

I can't tell when you're being serious and when you're being sarcastic. But then, I'm very socially impaired that way (seriously). So I'm just going to let that dog lie from here on out.

But hey, if I was wrong, then my apologies.

Dorian Gray
11th May 2010, 04:52 PM
If a kid is old enough to want them, heck yes they should have them. Parents might well want to discourage them from using them, but far better for the kids to have having protected sex if they are sexually active. 8-13 year old girls, Kevin. Pay attention.

Moderated content removed; inappropriate for public areas of the Forum No.
Drugs, not so much.Hypocrite.

Dorian Gray
11th May 2010, 05:03 PM
okay, I'm going to try and explain this again. I understand this stuff isn't common knowledge to guys so I understand your position. However, to again make you all disgustingly aware of reality for girls...



I know in those commercials, they always use a light blue fluid to represent a woman's menstrual blood. But in reality, menstrual blood is very dark red and not only that, it's chunky because your uterine lining is coming out. Do you know how hard to get chunky menstrual blood stains out of your underwear? It's like, ridiculously hard. That crap does not come out.

With regular sized underwear, panty liners (when tampons are used) and pads often do not fill the entire width of the underwear, so that nasty chunky blood can leak on the sides and stain them. With thongs, the pads and panty liners completely cover the surface area of the underwear. Also, thongs give a snugger fit so the liner is right up against you, which also better prevents leaks.

My mom got me thongs when I was a pre teen and she was the most uptight prim and proper catholic you could ever meet. It had nothing to do with being sexy and everything to do with me not wanting my panty lines to show and not wanting to try and scrub period stains out of my underwear.

Though of course, the ones she got me were plain and cotton, not lacy sexy G strings. But thongs themselves serve a utilitarian purpose, not just an aesthetic one.

Piggy - love the avatar! So your claim is that the manufacturers of panty liners, knowing that most women wear normal underwear, have designed every single panty liner so that it's too small.

That sounds extremely hard to believe.

Since the thong is narrower, the pad covers a smaller area, and while your thong is protected, your pants are not! Furthermore, we're talking about 8-13 year olds. The younger end of that range certainly isn't worrying about pads and tampons yet. If you did, whooptidoo, I'm talking about the average girl.

Dorian Gray
11th May 2010, 05:05 PM
I would actually claim that there's a huge difference between simply pictures of 'nekkid' kids and child pornography.

Nakedness =/= pornography.Right. How does that change my point, which is YOUR nakedness =/= anyone else's, and YOUR pornography =/= anyone else's?

Dorian Gray
11th May 2010, 05:08 PM
Have you lost your freakin' mind, coming away with this ridiculous strawman? How can you possibly have arrived at this conclusion?

If this is your attempt at humour then you are way off the mark.

I think your infantile obsessions are starting to affect your judgement.



Assuming you are not joking, precisely what is it that I'm refusing to acknowledge?

What kind of pervert implies that I must now ask pre-teen girls to let me see their underwear in order to see whatever it is that you believe I'm missing?
You seem to be making the claim that if you don't know or see that something is going on, then it's okay with you, or not bad, or something similar. I simply applied it to a ridiculous example to illustrate how ridiculous your apparent claim is. I could have used drugs or sex as an example, or any other 'who's it hurting' argument.

It's good to see that you DO draw the line somewhere, though.

Dorian Gray
11th May 2010, 05:15 PM
Far as I can see it's all pretty straight forward.

As a parent you have a right to determine and manage matters relating to your own child. As a parent you do not have a right to dictate how anyone else manages matters relating to their child (presuming such matters to be within the limits of the law).

If you don't want your child wearing thongs, don't buy them any, and manage them in such a way that they don't get any via other means. That's all you can and should do.

If other parents do want their children wearing thongs (or don't care), that's up to them to decide and manage, not you. If there's a market, a company will provide them. If there's no market, a company will not provide them.

End of story.

Commercial companies are not in the business of reinforcing your moral values. Nor should they be.

I'm not a parent, but I'd probably not let a hypothetical child of mine wear thongs and "sexy" underwear until she was 16. However I don't care if other parents do allow it. Their business, not mine.

I also agree with others that I have no interest whatsoever in what young girls are wearing under their pants. I think anyone who does have an interest in what young girls (other than sellers of what young girls wear under their clothes and parents of young girls in relation to what their own child is wearing) are wearing under their pants is, indeed, creepy.
Replace "If other parents do want their children wearing thongs (or don't care), that's up to them to decide and manage, not you." with "If other parents do want their children doing drugs (or don't care), that's up to them to decide and manage, not you." Is it different? And if so, why? And if so, how is it not hypocritical?

Dorian Gray
11th May 2010, 05:18 PM
This implies a degree of knowledge in advance of the situation on behalf of the child, I think. How does a pre teen girl know that a g-string is supposed ot be sexy. If she doesn't, then it doesn't matter. If she does then surely the damage has already been done?I disagree. Knowing about something is different from doing it. Teens are taught about sex, drugs, drinking, crime, etc., but not because we want them to take part in those things.

Nosi
11th May 2010, 09:58 PM
For the record, I too find it 'creepy', but i find Yorkshire Terriers creepy too but that's just my irrational reaction and no reason to ban Yorkshire Terriers (althought they should be)

Derail: Yorkies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkshire_Terrier) are adorable!:p

JFrankA
12th May 2010, 12:54 AM
This implies a degree of knowledge in advance of the situation on behalf of the child, I think. How does a pre teen girl know that a g-string is supposed ot be sexy. If she doesn't, then it doesn't matter. If she does then surely the damage has already been done?

For the record, I too find it 'creepy', but i find Yorkshire Terriers creepy too but that's just my irrational reaction and no reason to ban Yorkshire Terriers (althought they should be)

For the what it's worth, this explains what I meant by my previous posting far better than what I had said.

Piggy hit on what I'm trying to say too.

...though I don't find Yorkshire Terriers creepy. :)

cienaños
12th May 2010, 02:11 AM
I can't tell when you're being serious and when you're being sarcastic. But then, I'm very socially impaired that way (seriously). So I'm just going to let that dog lie from here on out.

But hey, if I was wrong, then my apologies.

100 buttholes of me on the wall, 100 buttholes of me...:)

----- ----- -----

Although I do acknowledge the similarities between those posts and how mine could've been mistaken as a direct response to yours, the truth is, it was not. I hadn't even read your post.

But that's he-said she-said, which probably doesn't sit well with you. So instead, again, I ask you to examine the substance of what I've said on the issue.

cienanos: Like I was saying, regarding the more trivial matters
Piggy: What I am clearly saying is that this is not the limit of parental responsibility.


We're saying the same thing in slightly different ways.

Kevin_Lowe
12th May 2010, 02:49 AM
Furthermore, we're talking about 8-13 year olds. The younger end of that range certainly isn't worrying about pads and tampons yet.

Actually menstruation at age 8 or 9 is common enough in the modern USA that it's not considered medically abnormal, particularly amongst ethnically African-American populations who (for whatever reason) hit sexual maturity a bit earlier than other ethnic groups.

3point14
12th May 2010, 04:21 AM
I disagree. Knowing about something is different from doing it. Teens are taught about sex, drugs, drinking, crime, etc., but not because we want them to take part in those things.

Took me a while to work out what it was you disagreed with - it's the 'Damage already done' part, yes?

I see what you mean, but I don't think I agree. If an eight year old is desperately trying to be a sexual being, (and to whom, I'm still worried about that) then there are far bigger problems than which underwear they're wearing. I think what I'm trying to say is that this is a symptom not a cause, perhaps.

I often wonder if we try to shield young people from sex too much, leaving it a very desirable taboo for them causing them to run towards it far too quickly, but that's a different discussion.

Careyp74
12th May 2010, 05:27 AM
I disagree, but I'll save my response to your first paragraph for the appropriate thread, should it arise (again?) rather than derail the thread.

Showing the photos on the packaging wouldn't be child pornography any more than showing photos of adults wearing underwear on the packaging it is sold in is ordinary pornography. There's a huge difference between what would be on the packages you're mentioning (no worse than showing a baby's bottom in a diaper commercial) and actual child pornography. I think you already know this.

It's not a perfect analogy, admittedly, but my point stands: the letter of the law in the two-teenagers example does not reflect the spirit of the law, an it'd be the same here. In fact, I'd say calling the packaging on the subject of the OP (which in my mind would probably be a kid standing there wearing them) "child pornography" would be stretching the definition so far as to make it meaningless. I don't know what the packaging looks like on kids' underwear today, as I haven't been in a section that sells it since I wore it myself, probably, but it's probably as tame as what would be put on the subject's packaging - meaning if anyone finds it arousing, they've already got plenty of material. Are you going to censor all images of children that could possibly arouse a pedophile?

Of course, that's provided there'd be a photo on the package at all, at least of the item in use. It's not like tampons or hemmorhoid cream have photos on their packaging. If I were the manufacturer I'd take this route, personally.

I agree with you, that it would not be child porn. I had to just assume the position in order to argue against the post saying that it is a good reason to ban the sale of the underwear to minors. I clearly outlined a hypothetical in which it was considered child porn, I never actually said that it is, or that I believe that it is.

bluesjnr
12th May 2010, 05:50 AM
You seem to be making the claim that if you don't know or see that something is going on, then it's okay with you, or not bad, or something similar.

No, I did not make any such claim. What I said was;

I couldn't tell you and don't give a toss what kind of underwear your average preteen is wearing. How the hell could I possibly know?

The point you are deliberately failing to grasp (for goodness knows what reason) is that if the underwear cannot be seen, then how can they be sexy? If person A does not know what person B is wearing under their clothing then how can person A assert that whatever it is, it is (sight unseen) "sexy"?

Now, if the young lady was flouting the fact that she was wearing underwear of this type or inviting comment or offering a view then that is another situation entirely. What I'm getting from your reactionary drivel is that you think this situation may or could possibly somehow occur simply by the act of wearing a thong.

I simply applied it to a ridiculous example to illustrate how ridiculous your apparent claim is. I could have used drugs or sex as an example, or any other 'who's it hurting' argument.

But you did use sex as an example, you set out to be as inflammatory as possible in your response to me and to others. Moderated content removed; inappropriate for public areas of the Forum. That is unjustifiable filth-mongering and you did not need to use these terms to advance your argument. Yet, for reasons known only to you, you did.

You asked about "preteen *****" - where on earth do you get THAT from?

It's good to see that you DO draw the line somewhere, though.

Don't condescend to me. I'd be happier if you could see where the lines should be drawn when talking about kids.

Darth Rotor
12th May 2010, 07:41 AM
Actually menstruation at age 8 or 9 is common enough in the modern USA that it's not considered medically abnormal,
IIRC (been a few years before I explored my curiosity on this topic) it's outside two sigmas, may be outside of three. Do you have stats to hand that suggests this is [I]common? None of the literature I've seen on this topic hold that position, that it is uncommon, but appearing with greater frequency.
particularly amongst ethnically African-American populations
Last article I saw on this (not in a medical journal, though it referenced journals and studies) pointed to diet.

Not sure of how solid a correlation that is.

DR

bluesjnr
12th May 2010, 09:41 AM
Well this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menarche) seems to confirm that it would be regarded as uncommon.

The average age of menarche is 11.75 years. It is about 12.5 years in the United States and 13.06 ± 0.10 years in Iceland.

Also the page confirms your assertion that diet (among a host of other factors) plays a part.

But I refuse to believe that menstruation is a factor in the vast majority of pre-teens choosing thongs.

Darth Rotor
12th May 2010, 12:20 PM
Well this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menarche) seems to confirm that it would be regarded as uncommon.



Also the page confirms your assertion that diet (among a host of other factors) plays a part.

But I refuse to believe that menstruation is a factor in the vast majority of pre-teens choosing thongs.
The pad/thong thing seems to have been presented to us by an adult woman who figured out a way to deal with an annoying female problem, and who would probably share this technique with her daughters. Given the age demographic you cite, your skepticism and wariness are well grounded.

DR

pgwenthold
12th May 2010, 12:29 PM
The pad/thong thing seems to have been presented to us by an adult woman who figured out a way to deal with an annoying female problem, and who would probably share this technique with her daughters. Given the age demographic you cite, your skepticism and wariness are well grounded.

DR

I can't say that I have spent a lot of time perusing the thong interest groups, but have talked to women who wear thongs on occasion about it, and never have heard them justified on the basis of the problem that SC described. And these were ADULT women, who presumably would be aware of the problem.

I don't doubt that SC finds that a good reason to wear thong underwear, but I share skepticism that this is commonly recognized reason to do so.

Darth Rotor
12th May 2010, 12:39 PM
I can't say that I have spent a lot of time perusing the thong interest groups,
I have too many one-liners for this, but shall for once resist the temptation.

I'll turn the other cheek, so to speak. :cool:

Drat.

I did it, didn't I? :blush:

bluesjnr
12th May 2010, 04:09 PM
I did it, didn't I? :blush:

Don't beat yourself up. Somebody had to do it.

Dorian Gray
12th May 2010, 04:39 PM
Took me a while to work out what it was you disagreed with - it's the 'Damage already done' part, yes?

I see what you mean, but I don't think I agree. If an eight year old is desperately trying to be a sexual being, (and to whom, I'm still worried about that) then there are far bigger problems than which underwear they're wearing. I think what I'm trying to say is that this is a symptom not a cause, perhaps.

I often wonder if we try to shield young people from sex too much, leaving it a very desirable taboo for them causing them to run towards it far too quickly, but that's a different discussion.Even if the child knows exactly what was happening, it wouldn't make it appropriate. That's why I mentioned all the other things. We can teach kids about sex, drugs, drinking, guns, abortion, rape, etc., and they can be knowledgeable about those things, without doing any of them - including wearing a thong.

Dorian Gray
12th May 2010, 04:54 PM
No, I did not make any such claim. What I said was;



The point you are deliberately failing to grasp (for goodness knows what reason) is that if the underwear cannot be seen, then how can they be sexy? If person A does not know what person B is wearing under their clothing then how can person A assert that whatever it is, it is (sight unseen) "sexy"?

Now, if the young lady was flouting the fact that she was wearing underwear of this type or inviting comment or offering a view then that is another situation entirely. What I'm getting from your reactionary drivel is that you think this situation may or could possibly somehow occur simply by the act of wearing a thong.

But you did use sex as an example, you set out to be as inflammatory as possible in your response to me and to others. Moderated content removed. That is unjustifiable filth-mongering and you did not need to use these terms to advance your argument. Yet, for reasons known only to you, you did.

You asked about "preteen ******" - where on earth do you get THAT from?



Don't condescend to me. I'd be happier if you could see where the lines should be drawn when talking about kids. I don't buy the "If I can't see it, there's nothing wrong with it" argument. Person A should be the parent.

In your comments above, you seem to be saying that my speech, which is protected by the Constitution, is inflammatory and wrong, but an 8 yr old wearing a thong is okay. I disagree. I think it's inappropriate for an 8 yr old to wear something that is blatantly and obviously portrayed in the media as a sexual article of clothing. I think it's inappropriate for a company to market the same article of clothing to that 8 yr old. And to me it doesn't matter that I can't see the underwear (unless a girl bends over, as seen in countless media pics), because I don't see a lot of things, yet they're still wrong or inappropriate. I mentioned all the things I did because of my disagreement with that extremely flawed argument (if you can't see something, who does it hurt).

3point14
12th May 2010, 04:57 PM
Even if the child knows exactly what was happening, it wouldn't make it appropriate. That's why I mentioned all the other things. We can teach kids about sex, drugs, drinking, guns, abortion, rape, etc., and they can be knowledgeable about those things, without doing any of them - including wearing a thong.

An eight year old?

Dorian Gray
12th May 2010, 04:59 PM
I can't say that I have spent a lot of time perusing the thong interest groups, but have talked to women who wear thongs on occasion about it, and never have heard them justified on the basis of the problem that SC described. And these were ADULT women, who presumably would be aware of the problem.

I don't doubt that SC finds that a good reason to wear thong underwear, but I share skepticism that this is commonly recognized reason to do so.
This.

Dorian Gray
12th May 2010, 05:05 PM
An eight year old? Yes. If they ask where babies come from (sex). If they have a D.A.R.E. representative come to their school (drinking and drugs). If their bus goes by a clinic that is being protested (abortion). If they watch a movie or TV show (guns, violence, thongs, etc.). Probably not rape, but "bad touching", certainly. They can be told about it, or have it explained when they ask, but it doesn't mean we want them to do it. The opposite, in fact.

bluesjnr
12th May 2010, 05:38 PM
I don't buy the "If I can't see it, there's nothing wrong with it" argument.

For the second time, that is not my argument. I am not making an argument, I never did. I made a statement that at best can be turned into a question.

"How do YOU know what underwear any given girl is wearing?"

Person A should be the parent.

You can make person A whomsoever you like but in my example person A is not the parent.

In your comments above, you seem to be saying that my speech, which is protected by the Constitution, is inflammatory and wrong, but an 8 yr old wearing a thong is okay. I disagree.

You do try your best to twist things around with this "you seem to be saying" tactic don't you? I am saying nothing of the sort with regard to an 8 year old wearing a thong. I am asking (phew) "How would I know?"

What relevance does the "Constitution" have to our debate?

To play your game though, your speech is not only inflammatory but, I would venture, that it might just be bordering on illegal in the UK under the communication act 2003

"127 Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent"


I find your assertions grossly offensive, indecent and obscene.

But since I'm not bound by your Constitution and you are not bound by UK law the point is moot.

I think it's inappropriate......

I don't think you are in position to comment on what is appropriate when you write about Moderated content removed; inappropriate content for public areas of the Forum.
......for an 8 yr old to wear something that is blatantly and obviously portrayed in the media as a sexual article of clothing.

How. Would. You. Know. What. Underwear. The. Little. Mite. Was. Wearing?

to me it doesn't matter that I can't see the underwear

Of course it doesn't matter to you. You'd much rather have her heading down the fallacious slippery slope and have every body else perpetrating a sex crime and your stance makes it so much easier to do so.

I mentioned all the things I did....

You did not merely "mention" anything. In actual fact you made an extremely specific and offensive accusation about me which you have yet to retract.

.......because of my disagreement with that extremely flawed argument (if you can't see something, who does it hurt).

Which is an argument of your making. I never said that.

quarky
12th May 2010, 07:32 PM
The little point in quarky's post was the idea of being required NOT to procreate.

I prefer to leave it to volition.

DR

That wasn't actually my point. It was an observation; anecdotal; that people might be moving away from the sort of sex that makes babies.

Darth Rotor
13th May 2010, 05:01 AM
That wasn't actually my point. It was an observation; anecdotal; that people might be moving away from the sort of sex that makes babies.
Ah, thanks, more volition than coercion. :) Maybe I should have seen that as "being inspired not to procreate" rather than being "required not to procreate."

DR

quarky
13th May 2010, 06:35 AM
Ah, thanks, more volition than coercion. :) Maybe I should have seen that as "being inspired not to procreate" rather than being "required not to procreate."

DR

Totally. Not totalitarian. I can't even force the ol' lady to were her cow-girl outfit.

Dorian Gray
13th May 2010, 07:32 PM
For the second time, that is not my argument. I am not making an argument, I never did. I made a statement that at best can be turned into a question.

"How do YOU know what underwear any given girl is wearing?"



You can make person A whomsoever you like but in my example person A is not the parent.



You do try your best to twist things around with this "you seem to be saying" tactic don't you? I am saying nothing of the sort with regard to an 8 year old wearing a thong. I am asking (phew) "How would I know?"

What relevance does the "Constitution" have to our debate?

To play your game though, your speech is not only inflammatory but, I would venture, that it might just be bordering on illegal in the UK under the communication act 2003




I find your assertions grossly offensive, indecent and obscene.

But since I'm not bound by your Constitution and you are not bound by UK law the point is moot.



Moderated content removed.



How. Would. You. Know. What. Underwear. The. Little. Mite. Was. Wearing?



Of course it doesn't matter to you. You'd much rather have her heading down the fallacious slippery slope and have every body else perpetrating a sex crime and your stance makes it so much easier to do so.



You did not merely "mention" anything. In actual fact you made an extremely specific and offensive accusation about me which you have yet to retract.



Which is an argument of your making. I never said that.I'm sorry if I lost you by skipping ahead, but if you aren't making or implying the above argument, what is the point of your question? If I answer "you can't see the underwear", what other possible response can you be leading to, if not tacit acceptance of any underwear, no matter how inappropriate, on the basis that you can't see it?

Robo Sapien
13th May 2010, 08:48 PM
Personally, I think these g-strings for teens are an abomination and a real threat to society, as I have experienced first-hand how underwear can shape the future of a teenager. I grew up wearing Batman underoos, and now every night I dash across rooftops in a mask and cape, dishing out vigilante justice. Terrible tragedy, it is. Surely all these teenage girls wearing thongs will turn into whores, or even worse, sluts (at least whores make a living).

Some of you folks really need to get a grip. They are ****** undergarments for cryin out loud. When teenage girls start wearing them around without pants, then there might be some cause for alarm.

quarky
13th May 2010, 11:37 PM
Personally, I think these g-strings for teens are an abomination and a real threat to society, as I have experienced first-hand how underwear can shape the future of a teenager. I grew up wearing Batman underoos, and now every night I dash across rooftops in a mask and cape, dishing out vigilante justice. Terrible tragedy, it is. Surely all these teenage girls wearing thongs will turn into whores, or even worse, sluts (at least whores make a living).

Some of you folks really need to get a grip. They are ****** undergarments for cryin out loud. When teenage girls start wearing them around without pants, then there might be some cause for alarm.



If you had grown up with Davy Crockett pajamas instead, like some of us, you wouldn't be saying this.

"King of the wild frontier".

Whereas Batman was pure fabrication.
You have my empathy.

(Wish I still had my fake coon-skin cap.)

bluesjnr
14th May 2010, 03:12 AM
I'm sorry if I lost you by skipping ahead, but if you aren't making or implying the above argument, what is the point of your question? If I answer "you can't see the underwear", what other possible response can you be leading to, if not tacit acceptance of any underwear, no matter how inappropriate, on the basis that you can't see it?

But you still haven't proved how it is inappropriate. My contention is that it may well become inappropriate if flouted openly and I've stated this. You need to tell me how a given value of inappropriateness is calculated and measured if the underwear is worn normally; i.e. underneath clothes as the name suggests.

In the main, all you have done up to now is throw spurious, smutty accusations around and I think that goes towards your reaction here. You are getting all bent out of shape at the mere thought of a pre-teen wearing a thong, whether she is or not matters not one jot to you. It is the intent that you wish to police.

Darth Rotor
14th May 2010, 04:46 AM
Some of you folks really need to get a grip. They are ****** undergarments for cryin out loud. When teenage girls start wearing them around without pants, then there might be some cause for alarm.
Or lust. The thong bikini worn during spring break, in Palm Springs some years back (was it really over ten years ago?) caused a hell of a reaction. That's roughly a g string worn in public.

Not passing judgment on whether Palm Springs overreacted or not (I was amused with the story, at the time) but plenty of the persons wearing the thongs were teenagers. (Based on the pictures, as my memory serves, some of them were hot enough to melt sand).

DR

Robo Sapien
14th May 2010, 07:44 AM
Or lust. The thong bikini worn during spring break, in Palm Springs some years back (was it really over ten years ago?) caused a hell of a reaction. That's roughly a g string worn in public.

Not passing judgment on whether Palm Springs overreacted or not (I was amused with the story, at the time) but plenty of the persons wearing the thongs were teenagers. (Based on the pictures, as my memory serves, some of them were hot enough to melt sand).

DR


Aye, I believe there was a general disapproval of thongs in public everywhere, not just over teenagers on spring break, which led to new decency laws being passed. There used to be a hot dog vendor here in Orlando, a former Rachels dancer who ran her operation at a busy intersection wearing a full string bikini. Her sales were through the roof, as expected. Eventually she had to change to a less revealing swimsuit because of the new ordinances, but it didn't seem to hurt her business at all.

Piggy
14th May 2010, 10:31 AM
Although I do acknowledge the similarities between those posts and how mine could've been mistaken as a direct response to yours, the truth is, it was not. I hadn't even read your post.

All right, then. I don't doubt you.

I'm back from the hospital and a little less uptight now.

It's true, having yourself cut open and worked on does tend to put things in perspective.

Sorry about all the unnecessary drama.

Piggy
14th May 2010, 10:36 AM
But you still haven't proved how it is inappropriate. My contention is that it may well become inappropriate if flouted openly and I've stated this. You need to tell me how a given value of inappropriateness is calculated and measured if the underwear is worn normally; i.e. underneath clothes as the name suggests.

I don't think the original objection was to the wearing of a particular cut of underwear, actually. It was to the marketing of that underwear to very young girls using sexualized imagery.

Bob from NJ
14th May 2010, 10:49 AM
How is this NOT child pornography? The parents should be ashamed, and the network that showed this should be brought up on criminal charges for child porn. I couldn't watch the whole video, this is really bad.

They're all excellent dancers, but these dance moves are sexually provocative; and the outfits? Why are 7 year olds dancing around in lingere? These aren't bathing suits or leotards, this is what grown women wear to entice their husbands to have sex! This is obscene.

Piggy
14th May 2010, 10:51 AM
How is this NOT child pornography? The parents should be ashamed, and the network that showed this should be brought up on criminal charges for child porn. I couldn't watch the whole video, this is really bad.

They're all excellent dancers, but these dance moves are sexually provocative; and the outfits? Why are 7 year olds dancing around in lingere? These aren't bathing suits or leotards, this is what grown women wear to entice their husbands to have sex! This is obscene.

You forgot the link. (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/05/13/ricks.girls.single.ladies.dance.cnn?iref=allsearch )

ETA: The commentator calls them "young women". They're not. They're little girls.

ETAA: Can you say "Little Miss Sunshine"?

Robo Sapien
14th May 2010, 11:11 AM
How is this NOT child pornography? The parents should be ashamed, and the network that showed this should be brought up on criminal charges for child porn. I couldn't watch the whole video, this is really bad.

They're all excellent dancers, but these dance moves are sexually provocative; and the outfits? Why are 7 year olds dancing around in lingere? These aren't bathing suits or leotards, this is what grown women wear to entice their husbands to have sex! This is obscene.


Can you tell me exactly where you found a wife that dresses like that to entice you into sex? Please? I'll pay.

Oh, and I think you're in the wrong thread. Click here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=175501).

Dorian Gray
14th May 2010, 03:38 PM
But you still haven't proved how it is inappropriate. My contention is that it may well become inappropriate if flouted openly and I've stated this. You need to tell me how a given value of inappropriateness is calculated and measured if the underwear is worn normally; i.e. underneath clothes as the name suggests.

In the main, all you have done up to now is throw spurious, smutty accusations around and I think that goes towards your reaction here. You are getting all bent out of shape at the mere thought of a pre-teen wearing a thong, whether she is or not matters not one jot to you. It is the intent that you wish to police.
No. Now you're putting words in my mouth. I don't need to tell you anything more than what I have already, and since you haven't disagreed with my comment, there's no point in us talking. I think it's inappropriate, and you don't.

In the meantime, you actually built a strawman argument out of the fact that we don't live under the same constitution, for crying out loud, and then argued that since we aren't in the same country, the point was moot. What was that all about?

Robo Sapien
14th May 2010, 03:56 PM
removed

Bob from NJ
14th May 2010, 09:28 PM
Can you tell me exactly where you found a wife that dresses like that to entice you into sex? Please? I'll pay.

Oh, and I think you're in the wrong thread. Click here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=175501).

Yeah, there's 2 "G-strings for pre-teens" threads; had trouble logging in-
Women have explained to me how they wear thong underwear cause the lines don't show, I get it; I have no problem if kids wear thongs- as UNDERwear. I have a BIG problem with parents who condone immodesty and sexual behavior in their children.

Robo Sapien
15th May 2010, 03:35 PM
Yeah, there's 2 "G-strings for pre-teens" threads; had trouble logging in-
Women have explained to me how they wear thong underwear cause the lines don't show, I get it; I have no problem if kids wear thongs- as UNDERwear. I have a BIG problem with parents who condone immodesty and sexual behavior in their children.


Yes, that discussion is quite active in the other thread.

Bob Blaylock
15th May 2010, 10:24 PM
It occurred to me to follow the links and see where they actually lead. The link to the Kohl's web site, allegedly to thong panties for preteen girls, actually leads to such panties for “juniors”. I admit to not being terribly well-versed in clothing sizes, but aren't “juniors”, young women, well into their teens if not into adulthood?

Here's the link to what the blog cited in the OP claimed were thongs for young girls. (http://www.kohls.com/kohlsStore/juniors/intimates/panties/thongs.jsp)


As for anything in the way of panties that might really be for any girls not yet in their teens, the three relevant categories do not appear to contain anything that could be characterized as inappropriate for those ages.

Toddlers (http://www.kohls.com/kohlsStore/kids/socksunderwear/toddlers.jsp)
Girsl 4-6X (http://www.kohls.com/kohlsStore/kids/girls46x/socksunderwear/underwear.jsp)
Girls 7-16 (http://www.kohls.com/kohlsStore/kids/girls716/socksunderwear/underwear.jsp)

As for the Candie's brand, which is being specifically targeted by this blog, it's hard to tell. Candie's has a really, really sucky web site, that is difficult to navigate, and which seems, once you actually get anywhere, to redirect you to Kohls. It appears that this is the sum total of Candies' offerings for preteen girls (http://www.kohls.com/kohlsStore/landingpages/candies_new/girls.jsp). A few bras, a few swimsuits, but no panties, and nothing particularly immodest.

A picture that is presented on the blog, of what there appears to be lingerie, is actually a swimsuit (http://www.kohls.com/kohlsStore/landingpages/candies_new/juniors/swim/PRD~c18203/Candies+Ditsy+Floral+Ruffled+Swim+Separates.jsp), and fairly modest as bikini-type swimsuits go; and as with the thong panties, it is not for preteen girls, but for “Juniors”. Compare the image at http://blog.pigtailpals.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/BritforCandies2.jpg of this outfit apparently being modeled by Brittney Spears, in a manner that makes it seem lingerieish; to the image of the very same outfit on Kohls' site (http://www.kohls.com/kohlsStore/landingpages/candies_new/juniors/swim/PRD~c18203/Candies+Ditsy+Floral+Ruffled+Swim+Separates.jsp), where it's true nature is more apparent.

It now appears that the blog in question has promoted a hoax—an attempt to falsely provoke moral panic—and that this thread is a successful result thereof.

Bob Blaylock
15th May 2010, 10:53 PM
A fine bunch of skeptics and critical thinkers we all are. Looking back, I see that this conversation has been going on for about ten days, 180+ posts, and until tonight, not one of us has thought to check to see whether the premise on which it is all based was true or not. One of us saw a blog, that claimed that Candie's/Kohl's were marketing thong panties and other inappropriately-sexualized clothing for little girls and we've all simply taken it for granted that this was the truth.

Tsukasa Buddha
15th May 2010, 11:15 PM
Um, the blog did say:

the Wall of Thong was less than 24 inches from the training bras, was facing the training bras and the whole Juniors section. At home, I put the thong, Size Small, on a dress form I use to display my Pigtail Pals tees. I picked my largest torso, an 8T. I had no problem fitting the thong onto the form that has a 29″ hip measurement (US standard hip measurement for a 10 yr old girl is 28.5 inches). The image is above.

I went to Kohl’s website to determine if maybe this was just an anomaly at my particular store. Nope. Seems Kohl’s family-focused department store has no problem selling sexy undies to Juniors under several of their labels. In addition to Candie’s, Mudd also makse thongs for teens and Hello Kitty makes a hipster that barely covers the public bone. Certainly there were many choices online for more appropriate underwear for a girl sized 7-16. But that differed from how the store was merchandised. The appropriate underwear was back by the Kids section, nowhere near the Juniors. The sexy underwear was right next to the Juniors section, where these girls would be shopping, either with the family or their friends. Let’s be honest, if you’re 13 years old and hanging out at the mall with your gal pals and you want to buy underwear, are you really going to excuse yourself and walk over to the kids’ section? Is Kohl’s counting on peer pressure to make sales?

...

First it was 16-21 years old. But their own website says 7-16 and Juniors. Then an email response said 18-24 years old. Which is it, Candie’s? The print ads run in teen magazines, arguably read by girls far younger than the 18 years they claim to market to. I don’t know how many 24 year olds wear training bras. Even if their market is 16-21 years old like written by a Candie’s rep on my blog, wouldn’t the promotion on Twitter of Britney Spear’s song “Three”, an ode threesomes, be inappropriate?

So I don't know what you are revealing that wasn't already given.

Bob Blaylock
15th May 2010, 11:44 PM
So I don't know what you are revealing that wasn't already given.


OK, so the hoax was even more clever than it first appeared; putting the truth in there, in front of our faces, but counting on us not to see it. And for a week and a half, none of us did.

Has this thread been, or has it not, all about the premise that Kohl's and Candies were specifically marketing sexy thong-type panties to preteen girls? Is this not the impression that the blog posting about which this thread was started specifically was crafted to produce?

Would this thread have gone on as it has, if we had all understood from the beginning that the thong panties in question were not, in fact, being marketed for young girls, but for grown women; and that neither Candie's nor Kohl's were marketing anything toward young girls that any of us would have found inappropriate?

Shame on all of us for being so easily fooled.

gumboot
16th May 2010, 02:52 AM
Replace "If other parents do want their children wearing thongs (or don't care), that's up to them to decide and manage, not you." with "If other parents do want their children doing drugs (or don't care), that's up to them to decide and manage, not you." Is it different? And if so, why? And if so, how is it not hypocritical?

Because doing drugs is against a law and wearing a thong isn't? Duh.

gumboot
16th May 2010, 03:01 AM
A fine bunch of skeptics and critical thinkers we all are. Looking back, I see that this conversation has been going on for about ten days, 180+ posts, and until tonight, not one of us has thought to check to see whether the premise on which it is all based was true or not. One of us saw a blog, that claimed that Candie's/Kohl's were marketing thong panties and other inappropriately-sexualized clothing for little girls and we've all simply taken it for granted that this was the truth.



Your research is quite interesting, but I must confess the specifics of the case never really interested me, but more the general question as to whether thongs were appropriate clothing for young girls. Whether anyone is actually selling thongs to young girls or not is not really relevant therefore.

Having said that, from their websites one has to presume that "junior" means over 16, and in my country 16 is the legal age of consent so I really can't see any issue with even overtly sexualising such people.

Sophronius
16th May 2010, 03:21 AM
To the guy who says that we were supposed to be more critical:

Yep, I read some of it, but I'm not really buying it. There's plenty of grownups that think Britney spears with a teddy bear is sexy, so the idea that this is marketed to children lacks substance.

My words right from my second post in the first page of the thread. This clearly proves that I am the only real critical thinker here. :D


Seriously though, I don't buy that it's a hoax. The author of the blog clearly believed what she was saying, and she had at least some reason to believe it true because one spokesperson said that it was marketed to preteens.

JWideman
16th May 2010, 04:50 AM
Your research is quite interesting, but I must confess the specifics of the case never really interested me, but more the general question as to whether thongs were appropriate clothing for young girls. Whether anyone is actually selling thongs to young girls or not is not really relevant therefore.

Having said that, from their websites one has to presume that "junior" means over 16, and in my country 16 is the legal age of consent so I really can't see any issue with even overtly sexualising such people.

Not only that, but in clothing "junior" is a size.

MatildaGage
16th May 2010, 05:44 AM
20 years ago when I worked with children, we were required to call the child abuse hotline if a kid was admitted wearing lingerie. And the calls were investigated because it was seen as sexualizing the child--a potential indicator of sexual abuse.

Interesting that society has come to believe the opposite now.

Skeptical Greg
16th May 2010, 10:17 AM
...........

It now appears that the blog in question has promoted a hoax—an attempt to falsely provoke moral panic—and that this thread is a successful result thereof.May we call you Sherlock, or would you prefer Mr. Holmes ?:D

Really, the debate was about ( if it were true ) was it appropriate to target pre-teens with sexy lingerie, not if the story was completely true..

Is the question not worth considering, if not based entirely on fact ?

Piggy
16th May 2010, 10:42 AM
OK, so the hoax was even more clever than it first appeared; putting the truth in there, in front of our faces, but counting on us not to see it. And for a week and a half, none of us did.

Has this thread been, or has it not, all about the premise that Kohl's and Candies were specifically marketing sexy thong-type panties to preteen girls? Is this not the impression that the blog posting about which this thread was started specifically was crafted to produce?

I've gone back and read the blog post, as well as your posts, and it seems to me that you haven't debunked anything.

As far as I can see, this thread is about the marketing of sexualized products to pubescent girls. Certainly, 12 and 13 year olds qualify.

Do you have any reason to doubt the blogger's claim that the Candie's thongs were displayed next to the training bras?

Or do you believe that training bras are typically sold to high-schoolers?

Dorian Gray
16th May 2010, 07:02 PM
It's not only just Candies/Kohls, but Abercrombie and Fitch. And it's not just recently, but also 8 years ago.

http://www.kcci.com/sh/news/stories/nat-news-146836020020519-160554.html
http://www.kcci.com/news/1474094/detail.html
http://www.breakpoint.org/commentaries/3079-from-diapers-to-thongs

A good question that came up in my real life is "What preteen has to worry about panty lines?"

bluesjnr
17th May 2010, 01:37 AM
No. Now you're putting words in my mouth. I don't need to tell you anything more than what I have already, and since you haven't disagreed with my comment, there's no point in us talking. I think it's inappropriate, and you don't.

Your climb down is noted with pleasure.

In the meantime, you actually built a strawman argument out of the fact that we don't live under the same constitution, for crying out loud, and then argued that since we aren't in the same country, the point was moot. What was that all about?

Emm, I think you'll agree that you brought up the constitution; from out of nowhere. Maybe you would like to elaborate 'cos I don't have a clue what goes on in that mind of yours and it is apparent that you are getting all mixed up?

bluesjnr
17th May 2010, 01:49 AM
I don't think the original objection was to the wearing of a particular cut of underwear, actually. It was to the marketing of that underwear to very young girls using sexualized imagery.

With respect, I was not responding to you nor was I responding to the OP. I was (originally anyway) responding to being accused of wanting to watch children have sex (I think the word used was "screwing") with 40 year midgets. This accusation came about because I failed to agree with DG's worldview. I said something like "how do we know what a child is wearing and I don't care to find out" and DG responded as above.The post you quoted was a result of that exchange.

I can understand your confusion.

;)

Dorian Gray
17th May 2010, 07:18 PM
Your climb down is noted with pleasure. Edited, breach of Rules 0 & 12.
Emm, I think you'll agree that you brought up the constitution; from out of nowhere. Maybe you would like to elaborate 'cos I don't have a clue what goes on in that mind of yours and it is apparent that you are getting all mixed up?Wrong. I brought up the Constitution NOT "from out of nowhere", but because you had a problem with my speech in this thread. YOU brought up the fact that we live in different countries and thus had different constitutions (which is a strawman), and then YOU dismissed your own argument as moot (which is not normal).

I just asked you why you would do those seemingly insane things. Although considering your avatar...

Sir Robin Goodfellow
17th May 2010, 08:44 PM
Dorian Gray, you're probably getting close to crossing a line with that last post.

bluesjnr
18th May 2010, 04:30 PM
Moderated content removed.

Not exactly covering yourself in glory there. I'll leave others to make of these repulsive words what they will.

Wrong. I brought up the Constitution NOT "from out of nowhere", but because you had a problem with my speech in this thread. YOU brought up the fact that we live in different countries and thus had different constitutions (which is a strawman), and then YOU dismissed your own argument as moot (which is not normal).

I have a problem with your vile, lecherous and peadophilic accusations. I have a problem with bullies who attempt to besmirch anybody who doesn't agree with them, it is as simple as that. You dredged up the strawman on the constitution of your country as if I was attempting to limit your right of free speech.

Although considering your avatar...

Considering my avatar? You have lost me now. Would you care to elaborate?

On second thoughts don't bother.

My avatar :rolleyes:

Dorian Gray
18th May 2010, 05:59 PM
I have a problem with someone who acts offended and indignant in lieu of answering a direct question, preferring to attack as they claim to have been attacked. "Oh lordy, your words hurt my virgin ears" and such. Indeed.

The fact remains, you have yet to directly answer the question of whether you think marketing thongs to preteens using sexual imagery is appropriate or not. If we go on what you've said so far, then you don't seem to have a problem with it. And if you don't have a problem with it, then in my opinion that means you're okay with it.

Which begs the question: Why are you okay with it?

So why don't you answer this direct question? Do you think marketing thongs to preteens using sexual imagery is appropriate, and why?

bluesjnr
19th May 2010, 02:58 AM
I am not down with the g-strings for preteens. They're associated with things that preteens don't need to be messing with yet. It just seems creepy. And that last argument is stupid. I'm sure child porn would sell, bottom line - but that doesn't mean it should be sold.

Am I comparing preteen g-strings with porn? Well, they aren't using preteens in the g-string ads or pics, are they. Why might that be, I wonder.....

Above is your OP. At no time did you ask for comment on whether marketing thongs to preteens was appropriate. You do ask why preteens are not used in the ads or pics. You do ask about whether or not you are comparing "preteen g-strings" with porn. You don't ask about or even mention the word marketing. Your OP is a statement of your position. The thread had drifted slightly through others discussing marketing and parenting e.t.c.

I looked at the blog in question and from it understood that the thongs in question were initially a problem to the blogger due to proximity to children's underwear in a certain store. The blogger bought a pair and fitted them, at home, to a doll or something and at that point got all wound up. She then went onto the website and "confirmed" her suspicions. She had to do a heck of a lot of work (measuring tapes, doll fittings, internet research) to get offended in my opinion. That is why I then commented that it looked like a typical knee jerk reaction and couldn't care less what preteens were wearing as I was not in a position to know.

Your response.

So you don't have a problem with a preteen having sex with a 40-year-old midget stripper? Because, how the hell could you possibly know?

Nice "If I don't see it it doesn't exist" attitude you have there.

You make a direct accusation. There is no middle ground. Your position is clear and it is that if I do not agree with your stance then I am a paedophile. Not just any old paedophile mark you but a particularly nefarious one who likes to involve midget strippers. I have arrived at this conclusion as, surely, only a paedophile would gain satisfaction form the act you describe. You have spectacularly failed to redress or retract that accusation and have went on to make further statements, in a similar vein, regarding me.

I have a problem with someone who acts offended and indignant in lieu of answering a direct question, preferring to attack as they claim to have been attacked. "Oh lordy, your words hurt my virgin ears" and such. Indeed.

DG, you certainly do have a problem and that much is becoming clear as this exchange continues. I am not acting offended, let me reassure you, I am very offended. I am entitled to disagree with you or have a different way of looking at things than you and should not have to put up with these disgusting accusations because I do. You are not allowing debate, you are bullying and trying to intimidate me into agreeing with you. If I don't then I am a paedophile according to your "rules".

The fact remains, you have yet to directly answer the question of whether you think marketing thongs to preteens using sexual imagery is appropriate or not. If we go on what you've said so far, then you don't seem to have a problem with it. And if you don't have a problem with it, then in my opinion that means you're okay with it.

The fact is that in the link you provided and those in the blog itself, I did not see any sexual imagery. I saw four, stock photos of Britney Spears, the type of which adorn many young girls bedroom walls. I saw standard catalogue photos of underwear on what looked like mannequins. I saw nothing sexual nor even remotely pornographic. I shudder to think, given the foregoing, what kind of imagery you have in mind but I would say that it's a fair bet that I would object to it. I don't know if that might answer your question?

Which begs the question: Why are you okay with it?

See....... there you go again. You just can't stop yourself can you? I really think you need to address this anti-social behaviour. Oh and that'll be another strawman from you.

So why don't you answer this direct question? Do you think marketing thongs to preteens using sexual imagery is appropriate, and why?

Well, now that you've cleared everything up and I've answered that question above, please let me use your debating strategy to ask you a question.

You state that your issue is whether or not the marketing of underwear to preteens should use sexual imagery. You don't seem to have any issue about them actually wearing it. In that case.......insert wild paedophilic accusation/strawman here...........

For what it is worth and because I just know you'll try to make something out of what I just wrote, I don't think you are a paedophile. I'm trying to demonstrate how frustrating your tactics are.

Sorry to patronise but I really do think you ought to speak to someone about your propensity to write repulsive things about people who don't toe your line.

I've had as much of you as I can stomach.

gumboot
19th May 2010, 03:14 AM
I've gone back and read the blog post, as well as your posts, and it seems to me that you haven't debunked anything.

As far as I can see, this thread is about the marketing of sexualized products to pubescent girls. Certainly, 12 and 13 year olds qualify.

Do you have any reason to doubt the blogger's claim that the Candie's thongs were displayed next to the training bras?

Or do you believe that training bras are typically sold to high-schoolers?



Actually if you read into the blog a bit closer, they're basically full of crap.

I cite this crucial bit of information:

Certainly there were many choices online for more appropriate underwear for a girl sized 7-16. But that differed from how the store was merchandised. The appropriate underwear was back by the Kids section, nowhere near the Juniors. The sexy underwear was right next to the Juniors section, where these girls would be shopping, either with the family or their friends. Let’s be honest, if you’re 13 years old and hanging out at the mall with your gal pals and you want to buy underwear, are you really going to excuse yourself and walk over to the kids’ section? Is Kohl’s counting on peer pressure to make sales?

Now, the blogger tries to make this into an argument in support of their moral outrage, but if we actually disassemble it properly, we'll find otherwise.

Firstly, the facts. "Kids" by Kohl's definition are girls under the age of 16. "Juniors" are girls over the age of 16, but presumably younger than a "woman". Let's say 16 - 20 or something.

So. What does the above sentence tell us.

1. Underwear appropriate for children is in the kids section.
2. Underwear appropriate for older teens is in the juniors section.

So what exactly is the crux of their argument then? That 13 year olds shop in the juniors section, not the kids section.

Say what?

Apparently that's Kohl's fault. Of course the fact that the juniors section has the sexy clothes designed for adults has nothing to do with the 13yr olds shopping there. :rolleyes:

I guarantee if you switched it over, put the kids underwear in the juniors section and the juniors underwear in the kids section, those same 13yr olds would buy their underwear in the kids section.

The person who wrote that blog is legally retarded.

And they go on further to demonstrate their legal retardation when they take a swipe at the shot of Britney in her "sexy lingerie".

IT IS NOT UNDERWEAR.

If you go to the Candie's website (where this mental muppet claims to have found the image of Britney Spears) the image in question is used for the swim suit section.

And here's the item in question (http://www.kohls.com/kohlsStore/landingpages/candies_new/juniors/swim/PRD~c18203/Candies+Ditsy+Floral+Ruffled+Swim+Separates.jsp).

Take note, oh valiant champion of blogging stupidity:

Radiant in ruffles. You'll take center stage wearing these juniors' Candie's ruffled swim separates. In white/pink.

As for her stunning find on the size of that sexy thong...

It was size small, and fitted a 29" hip. But the underwear in question has an elastic waistband, which really brings into question how robust her argument is. The entire basis seems to be that a Girls size S was designed to fit a young girl, and not an older girl.

Then there's probably the stupidest of all the pieces of evidence - Britney Spears with a teddy bear. Since soft toys are only for children, clearly it's marketed at children. :rolleyes:

There's other bizarre remarks in this rambling train wreck of a blog, for example:

In many cases these girls are too young to understand the messages they would be sending.

(In relation to young girls wearing sexy underwear).

Um... what? How exactly are they "sending a message" by wearing underwear? NO ONE CAN SEE IT.

The rest of the argument continues with the same nonsensical dribble, for example trying to use the words of a stripper to justify a girl wearing a thong with someone going into a strip club. Excuse me?

Thus far, the person in question has not provided a single scrap of evidence in support of their stupid claims, and quite a decent amount of evidence against their claims.

gumboot
19th May 2010, 03:16 AM
The fact remains, you have yet to directly answer the question of whether you think marketing thongs to preteens using sexual imagery is appropriate or not.

There's no evidence whatsoever in the blog in question of anyone "marketing thongs to preteens using sexual imagery".

The only "sexual imagery" even raised in the blog is the one Britney Spears photo, which is being used to market swimwear to juniors.

Locknar
19th May 2010, 06:18 AM
I have gone through this thread, and moved or otherwise edited comments that are inappropriate (in total or for public areas of the Forum) in terms of Rule 2, as well as Rule 0 and 12 breaches.

Further Rule 2 breaches, bickering/nastiness will be dealt with severely.

I understand this is a sensitive topic...but please keep the discussion civil/polite, on-topic, and within the other guildlines of your Membership Agreement (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25744).

If you have any questions on why your post was Moderated, you are welcome to PM me (or any member of the Mod Team) or post in the Questions sub-forum of Forum Management.

Piggy
19th May 2010, 07:38 AM
1. Underwear appropriate for children is in the kids section.
2. Underwear appropriate for older teens is in the juniors section.

So... you're saying training bras are for older teens?

I think you need to go back and read a bit more carefully.

I don't agree with your analysis at all.

Dorian Gray
19th May 2010, 07:37 PM
Above is your OP. At no time did you ask for comment on whether marketing thongs to preteens was appropriate. You do ask why preteens are not used in the ads or pics. You do ask about whether or not you are comparing "preteen g-strings" with porn. You don't ask about or even mention the word marketing. Your OP is a statement of your position. The thread had drifted slightly through others discussing marketing and parenting e.t.c.

I looked at the blog in question and from it understood that the thongs in question were initially a problem to the blogger due to proximity to children's underwear in a certain store. The blogger bought a pair and fitted them, at home, to a doll or something and at that point got all wound up. She then went onto the website and "confirmed" her suspicions. She had to do a heck of a lot of work (measuring tapes, doll fittings, internet research) to get offended in my opinion. That is why I then commented that it looked like a typical knee jerk reaction and couldn't care less what preteens were wearing as I was not in a position to know.

Your response.



You make a direct accusation. There is no middle ground. Your position is clear and it is that if I do not agree with your stance then I am a paedophile. Not just any old paedophile mark you but a particularly nefarious one who likes to involve midget strippers. I have arrived at this conclusion as, surely, only a paedophile would gain satisfaction form the act you describe. You have spectacularly failed to redress or retract that accusation and have went on to make further statements, in a similar vein, regarding me. I didn't accuse you of being a pedophile with that statement, so there's nothing to retract. I didn't say YOU were having sex with the underage girl, that YOU would be watching the midget, nor did I say you wanted to. In fact, I implied you would not know. The only accusation I made against you, and indirectly at that, is that you were making the argument "I am not offended by something if I can't see it."

You're seeing things that aren't there, and overreacting like a spoiled brat because I won't apologize for your lack of reading comprehension.

DG, you certainly do have a problem and that much is becoming clear as this exchange continues. I am not acting offended, let me reassure you, I am very offended. I am entitled to disagree with you or have a different way of looking at things than you and should not have to put up with these disgusting accusations because I do. You are not allowing debate, you are bullying and trying to intimidate me into agreeing with you. If I don't then I am a paedophile according to your "rules". Again, never posed that false dichotomy.

The fact is that in the link you provided and those in the blog itself, I did not see any sexual imagery. I saw four, stock photos of Britney Spears, the type of which adorn many young girls bedroom walls. I saw standard catalogue photos of underwear on what looked like mannequins. I saw nothing sexual nor even remotely pornographic. I shudder to think, given the foregoing, what kind of imagery you have in mind but I would say that it's a fair bet that I would object to it. I don't know if that might answer your question? No. It doesn't. I didn't ask if you saw sexual imagery. I didn't ask if you saw catalog pictures. I didn't ask if you saw anything pornographic or sexual. I didn't ask about any sort of imagery whatsoever. Those are all strawmen!

Why would you have to SEE something awful to be offended by it? You seem to be offended by my midget comment, and you only READ that comment. So you can obviously be offended by merely READING something. You read two things, my comment and the blog, and expressed offense at just one of them. What other conclusion can be drawn but that you were NOT offended by the other? And if you're not offended, you're .... what? Accepting? You seem to be unwilling to take a position on this, and in post after post it's more of the same unwillingness to actually state your unequivocal position on this issue.

See....... there you go again. You just can't stop yourself can you? I really think you need to address this anti-social behaviour. Oh and that'll be another strawman from you. Get this: If you can't definitively and unequivocally state that you are offended by the use of sexualized imagery to market sexy underwear to preteens, then you must not be offended by it. Period. It's not a strawman. It's basic logic. Perhaps it would help if you would look up the meaning of 'strawman'.

Well, now that you've cleared everything up and I've answered that question above, NO you haven't!!! You even had to ask me if you had answered it, so uncertain were you of its clarity and relevance. "I don't know if that might answer your question?" Ring any bells? please let me use your debating strategy to ask you a question.

You state that your issue is whether or not the marketing of underwear to preteens should use sexual imagery. You don't seem to have any issue about them actually wearing it. In that case.......insert wild paedophilic accusation/strawman here...........

For what it is worth and because I just know you'll try to make something out of what I just wrote, I don't think you are a paedophile. I'm trying to demonstrate how frustrating your tactics are. Okay. Why is it that you can USE the tactic, but not recognize when I use it? Because that's exactly what I did. And if it's okay for you and not me, then you are also guilty of using double standards in addition to your poor reading comprehension.

All the extreme examples I used were to get you to realize the inherent mistake in the argument "if I don't see it, it doesn't bother me" which, whether you realize it or not, you are making. You don't have to see something for it to bother you, or to be offensive.

Sorry to patronise but I really do think you ought to speak to someone about your propensity to write repulsive things about people who don't toe your line.

I've had as much of you as I can stomach. Perhaps you should attempt to actually understand what you are reading before you get offended and fly off the handle. You can start with answering my direct question. Can you do that?

Dorian Gray
19th May 2010, 07:56 PM
Actually if you read into the blog a bit closer, they're basically full of crap.

I cite this crucial bit of information:



Now, the blogger tries to make this into an argument in support of their moral outrage, but if we actually disassemble it properly, we'll find otherwise.

Firstly, the facts. "Kids" by Kohl's definition are girls under the age of 16. "Juniors" are girls over the age of 16, but presumably younger than a "woman". Let's say 16 - 20 or something.

So. What does the above sentence tell us.

1. Underwear appropriate for children is in the kids section.
2. Underwear appropriate for older teens is in the juniors section.

So what exactly is the crux of their argument then? That 13 year olds shop in the juniors section, not the kids section.

Say what?

Apparently that's Kohl's fault. Of course the fact that the juniors section has the sexy clothes designed for adults has nothing to do with the 13yr olds shopping there. :rolleyes:

I guarantee if you switched it over, put the kids underwear in the juniors section and the juniors underwear in the kids section, those same 13yr olds would buy their underwear in the kids section.

The person who wrote that blog is legally retarded.

And they go on further to demonstrate their legal retardation when they take a swipe at the shot of Britney in her "sexy lingerie".

IT IS NOT UNDERWEAR.

If you go to the Candie's website (where this mental muppet claims to have found the image of Britney Spears) the image in question is used for the swim suit section.

And here's the item in question (http://www.kohls.com/kohlsStore/landingpages/candies_new/juniors/swim/PRD%7Ec18203/Candies+Ditsy+Floral+Ruffled+Swim+Separates.jsp).

Take note, oh valiant champion of blogging stupidity:



As for her stunning find on the size of that sexy thong...

It was size small, and fitted a 29" hip. But the underwear in question has an elastic waistband, which really brings into question how robust her argument is. The entire basis seems to be that a Girls size S was designed to fit a young girl, and not an older girl.

Then there's probably the stupidest of all the pieces of evidence - Britney Spears with a teddy bear. Since soft toys are only for children, clearly it's marketed at children. :rolleyes:

There's other bizarre remarks in this rambling train wreck of a blog, for example:



(In relation to young girls wearing sexy underwear).

Um... what? How exactly are they "sending a message" by wearing underwear? NO ONE CAN SEE IT.

The rest of the argument continues with the same nonsensical dribble, for example trying to use the words of a stripper to justify a girl wearing a thong with someone going into a strip club. Excuse me?

Thus far, the person in question has not provided a single scrap of evidence in support of their stupid claims, and quite a decent amount of evidence against their claims.
Apparently you don't realize that 'women', 'juniors' and 'girls' are size-based terms, not age-based terms. That's why the tags have sizes on them instead of ages.

bluesjnr
20th May 2010, 04:46 AM
I didn't accuse you of being a pedophile with that statement, so there's nothing to retract. I didn't say YOU were having sex with the underage girl, that YOU would be watching the midget, nor did I say you wanted to. In fact, I implied you would not know. The only accusation I made against you, and indirectly at that, is that you were making the argument "I am not offended by something if I can't see it."

You stated that I was okay with a certain gross act being perpetrated on a child. You did not "imply" that I would not know - you stated that I would be OK with it. You described this act graphically. The only type of person who would find the act described acceptable or would knowingly ignore the perpetration of the act would be a paedophile. You, indirectly, accused me of being a paedophile. You made this accusation based entirely on my "how could I know" response.

You're seeing things that aren't there, and overreacting like a spoiled brat because I won't apologize for your lack of reading comprehension.

I have laid out my stall with regard to this explicitly. If anything is to blame it is your clumsy writing style and scattergun approach.

Again, never posed that false dichotomy.

Yes you did. It was either agree with me or....you know the rest.

No. It doesn't. I didn't ask if you saw sexual imagery. I didn't ask if you saw catalog pictures. I didn't ask if you saw anything pornographic or sexual. I didn't ask about any sort of imagery whatsoever. Those are all strawmen!

DG, you are on record as asking me whether or not I approve of sexual imagery being used to market panties to children. You even ask the question IN THIS REPLY!

What I'm telling you is that I did not see any sexual imagery in the link you provided. I followed a few links from the blog page and saw no evidence that sexual imagery was being used, therefore you should be able to conclude that the example you gave was not, to me, a good one. Like I say you should be able to make this conclusion but you won't.

Is it now the case that your question is hypothetical? If this is so then I cannot answer because I don't have a frame of reference.

Why would you have to SEE something awful to be offended by it? You seem to be offended by my midget comment, and you only READ that comment. So you can obviously be offended by merely READING something. You read two things, my comment and the blog, and expressed offense at just one of them. What other conclusion can be drawn but that you were NOT offended by the other? And if you're not offended, you're .... what? Accepting? You seem to be unwilling to take a position on this, and in post after post it's more of the same unwillingness to actually state your unequivocal position on this issue.

You are giving me two - just two - choices when in fact there are more than that. Can you name a logical fallacy that fits that description? I doubt it since you consistently deny that you are committing this fallacy. The choice that you favour must be supported by evidence. It isn't.

Get this: If you can't definitively and unequivocally state that you are offended by the use of sexualized imagery to market sexy underwear to preteens, then you must not be offended by it. Period. It's not a strawman. It's basic logic.

You are correct. It is not a strawman you are setting here. It is, in fact, a false dichotomy.

Could you please elaborate what you mean by "Get this"? I am particularly keen to know what might happen if I don't "Get this"? It sounds terribly aggressive to me.

Perhaps it would help if you would look up the meaning of strawman

You said "Which begs the question: Why are you okay with it? "

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)say's "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position"

Please take a little time to educate yourself before you presume to educate me.

NO you haven't!!! You even had to ask me if you had answered it, so uncertain were you of its clarity and relevance. "I don't know if that might answer your question?" Ring any bells?

Granted. I asked because I'm not entirely sure that any answer I give will suffice. Let me just say that I can't see where I say or even allude that I am unsure of my answers "clarity and relevance". It seems to me that, from that you are misrepresenting my position and that would make this another......................... can you guess?

Okay. Why is it that you can USE the tactic, but not recognize when I use it? Because that's exactly what I did. And if it's okay for you and not me, then you are also guilty of using double standards in addition to your poor reading comprehension.

I predicted this (MDC winner here) and in doing so answered it in advance. You either did not read or, to use your phraseology, suffer from poor reading comprehension. Here it is again to help you.

From this post
(http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5948304&postcount=196)

For what it is worth and because I just know you'll try to make something out of what I just wrote, I don't think you are a paedophile. I'm trying to demonstrate how frustrating your tactics are.

Anyway......

All the extreme examples I used were to get you to realize the inherent mistake in the argument "if I don't see it, it doesn't bother me" which, whether you realize it or not, you are making. You don't have to see something for it to bother you, or to be offensive.

To get me to realise? That statement, in this context, reeks of arrogance and explains a lot. I conclude from the above that you feel it is OK to abuse me and others in a repugnant way just to ram your point home.

What you are stating above as my argument was never stated by me. It is not, as has been said previously, my arguement. You are in fact (here we go again) misrepresenting my position.

In many ways you are falling out with yourself.

I have never seen a murder committed - The fact that they are "bothers me".

I have never seen a rape committed - The fact that they are "bothers me".

I could go on.

Perhaps you should attempt to actually understand what you are reading before you get offended and fly off the handle.

I really do not think that I have a comprehension issue here. I never feigned indignation, I am indignant and offended. At least one other poster warned you about your use of language, so that proves that I'm not seeing something that is not there. If you are not aware of the power of words and the possible ramifications of using them then you should consider exercising more restraint.

You can start with answering my direct question.

Or what? I can do what I damn well like my friend and certainly don't take orders from some faceless guy on the internet. Get you!

Can you do that?

No, I cannot and at this point in time, will not. Because I do not agree that sexual imagery was used, as you describe, in the example you gave. You have not yet provided any other hard evidence that there has ever been a case where it has been used. I refuse to answer the question based on what I think, you think sexual imagery constitutes for reasons previously stated.

Sophronius
20th May 2010, 05:45 AM
You stated that I was okay with a certain gross act being perpetrated on a child. You did not "imply" that I would not know - you stated that I would be OK with it. You described this act graphically. The only type of person who would find the act described acceptable or would knowingly ignore the perpetration of the act would be a paedophile. You, indirectly, accused me of being a paedophile. You made this accusation based entirely on my "how could I know" response.

Just butting in to point out that this is incorrect. A pedophile is someone who is attracted to people below the legal age. It has nothing to do with what a person finds acceptable, much less what a person can be bothered to care about. A sociopath for example might not care about children being raped but that would not make him a rapist nor would it make him a pedophile. The same holds for a person who is just extremely apathetic.

Dorian Grey only criticized your argument by delivering a counter example. Mind you the argument was an appeal to emotion, while at the same time implying that if you were alright with his example that you are some kind of monster (what's the word for that falacy again?) but at no point did he accuse you of being a pedophile.

Anyway, just wanted to correct that. Carry on.

bluesjnr
20th May 2010, 06:58 AM
Just butting in to point out that this is incorrect. A pedophile is someone who is attracted to people below the legal age. It has nothing to do with what a person finds acceptable, much less what a person can be bothered to care about. A sociopath for example might not care about children being raped but that would not make him a rapist nor would it make him a pedophile. The same holds for a person who is just extremely apathetic.

Of course you are correct to some extent but (and I shudder to say this Soph) we have to look at context. I am certain that DG's original reply to me was not meant to imply that I was either a sociopath or extremely apathetic, these were not subjects that were being discussed in this thread. I think you would agree................no?

He stated that because of my response, it followed that I would be "OK" with the act he then went on to describe.

I think you are limiting the definition of paedophile in making your case. A paedophile may show his or her attraction to preteens (in this case) in the form of intense sexual urges towards children, sexual urges towards and fantasies about children that they have either acted on, or will cause distress or interpersonal difficulty. So, if I am OK with the act as described it then fits that broader definition, ergo: I am being accused of being a paedophile.

He didn't stop there and further compounded things with another smutty (preteen related) statement that I cannot quote.

Dorian Grey only criticized your argument by delivering a counter example.

No, he did not provide an example, he did not criticise. He made a wild accusation regarding my sexual boundaries. I cannot quote the statement he made as it was sufficiently bad enough to merit mod action. He set up a very poor fallacious argument based on my original response to his OP.

but at no point did he accuse you of being a pedophile.

Not directly and if you look at my post (the one before yours above) you will see that I state this explicitly.

"You, indirectly, accused me of being a paedophile."

Anyway, just wanted to correct that.

I maintain that, in my opinion, you have not achieved your goal and would like to say that I am just teeny bit disappointed that you chose to assert that you are correct. I hope you can review your position in light of this response.

Carry on.

Why, thank you! :p

Sophronius
20th May 2010, 08:15 AM
Ok, I don't think that Dorian Grey intended it that way but frankly I can't be bothered to get worked up over this and I would suggest you don't take this too seriously yourself :p


On a far more interesting note, why do you take such offense at the idea of being called a pedophile? Last I checked the consensus was that it is mostly a genetic thing and as such not something you can do much about. Also, I have read about pedophiles who are perfectly normal people and in fact lament their natural urges, and do everything they can to ensure they never act on them.

It is not the same as being called a child molester.

Darth Rotor
20th May 2010, 09:00 AM
On a far more interesting note, why do you take such offense at the idea of being called a pedophile?
If he isn't one, why should he wear that label?

The label has significant social, negative connotation, your point on definitional distinctions considered.

DR

bluesjnr
20th May 2010, 09:05 AM
Ok, I don't think that Dorian Grey intended it that way

Fine Soph but, respectfully, your subjective opinion in this regard is noted and ignored.

frankly I can't be bothered to get worked up over this

That's OK because it is not you that stands accused and you have nothing to get worked up about.

If you are getting pissed off with me banging on about it, I fully understand.
;)

and I would suggest you don't take this too seriously yourself :p

I take it seriously because.

1) It is untrue.
2) It is a fallacious device being used to hammer home an unsupported assertion.
3) I feel like it!


On a far more interesting note, why do you take such offense at the idea of being called a pedophile? Last I checked the consensus was that it is mostly a genetic thing and as such not something you can do much about. Also, I have read about pedophiles who are perfectly normal people and in fact lament their natural urges, and do everything they can to ensure they never act on them.

I'm not sure you are selling this to me. If you live in the UK why don't you try calling some random dude a paedophile (say in a busy, town centre pub). When you've picked up all your teeth and had your nose reset and the pool cue removed, ask him why it was he got so upset? Out of interest, where are you from 'cos I'm fairly certain this experiment will produce similar results in most of Europe, United States and Australia?

AND YOU REALLY SHOULD NOT TRY THIS

It is not the same as being called a child molester.

I'd say that if you are a child molester then you are a paedophile.

Personal Grudge
20th May 2010, 09:28 AM
I'd say that if you are a child molester then you are a paedophile.

I'm sure the point was just that... while all child molesters are paedophiles, not all paedophiles are child molesters.

Though, when it comes down to it, I imagine most of us would take offense at being called either one. I doubt I'd be looked upon with much favor if I told parents of a child, "I would never molest your child, but I sure do have strong sexual urges for him/her."

Sophronius
20th May 2010, 09:29 AM
If you are getting pissed off with me banging on about it, I fully understand.

You were banging on about it, but don't worry, I don't really care :p

3) I feel like it!

Well that's fine then, just as long as you don't blame me if you get a rise in your blood pressure because of this :cool:

I'm not sure you are selling this to me. If you live in the UK why don't you try calling some random dude a paedophile (say in a busy, town centre pub). When you've picked up all your teeth and had your nose reset and the pool cue removed, ask him why it was he got so upset? Out of interest, where are you from 'cos I'm fairly certain this experiment will produce similar results in most of Europe, United States and Australia?

AND YOU REALLY SHOULD NOT TRY THIS

Ok, first I should make it clear that I was intentionally being a little provocative. I was just trying to steer the discussion away from you and Dorian arguing about who insulted who ad infinitum. :D

Secondly, I should point out that you may well get the same result if you call some random dude gay. However, if some random dude called me gay (or a pedophile, even) I wouldn't be insulted, just annoyed.

Thirdly, I'm Dutch, and I do believe that makes a difference. Well, in some parts you'll get the same result I'm sure, but the amount of broken teeth you'll get on average is bound to be lower than in Texas.

I'd say that if you are a child molester then you are a paedophile.

This is correct. However, the reverse is not true.

Dorian Gray
20th May 2010, 08:06 PM
You stated that I was okay with a certain gross act being perpetrated on a child. You did not "imply" that I would not know - you stated that I would be OK with it. You described this act graphically. The only type of person who would find the act described acceptable or would knowingly ignore the perpetration of the act would be a paedophile. You, indirectly, accused me of being a paedophile. You made this accusation based entirely on my "how could I know" response.



I have laid out my stall with regard to this explicitly. If anything is to blame it is your clumsy writing style and scattergun approach.



Yes you did. It was either agree with me or....you know the rest.



DG, you are on record as asking me whether or not I approve of sexual imagery being used to market panties to children. You even ask the question IN THIS REPLY!

What I'm telling you is that I did not see any sexual imagery in the link you provided. I followed a few links from the blog page and saw no evidence that sexual imagery was being used, therefore you should be able to conclude that the example you gave was not, to me, a good one. Like I say you should be able to make this conclusion but you won't.

Is it now the case that your question is hypothetical? If this is so then I cannot answer because I don't have a frame of reference.



You are giving me two - just two - choices when in fact there are more than that. Can you name a logical fallacy that fits that description? I doubt it since you consistently deny that you are committing this fallacy. The choice that you favour must be supported by evidence. It isn't.



You are correct. It is not a strawman you are setting here. It is, in fact, a false dichotomy.

Could you please elaborate what you mean by "Get this"? I am particularly keen to know what might happen if I don't "Get this"? It sounds terribly aggressive to me.



You said "Which begs the question: Why are you okay with it? "

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)say's "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position"

Please take a little time to educate yourself before you presume to educate me.



Granted. I asked because I'm not entirely sure that any answer I give will suffice. Let me just say that I can't see where I say or even allude that I am unsure of my answers "clarity and relevance". It seems to me that, from that you are misrepresenting my position and that would make this another......................... can you guess?



I predicted this (MDC winner here) and in doing so answered it in advance. You either did not read or, to use your phraseology, suffer from poor reading comprehension. Here it is again to help you.

From this post
(http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5948304&postcount=196)



Anyway......



To get me to realise? That statement, in this context, reeks of arrogance and explains a lot. I conclude from the above that you feel it is OK to abuse me and others in a repugnant way just to ram your point home.

What you are stating above as my argument was never stated by me. It is not, as has been said previously, my arguement. You are in fact (here we go again) misrepresenting my position.

In many ways you are falling out with yourself.

I have never seen a murder committed - The fact that they are "bothers me".

I have never seen a rape committed - The fact that they are "bothers me".

I could go on.



I really do not think that I have a comprehension issue here. I never feigned indignation, I am indignant and offended. At least one other poster warned you about your use of language, so that proves that I'm not seeing something that is not there. If you are not aware of the power of words and the possible ramifications of using them then you should consider exercising more restraint.



Or what? I can do what I damn well like my friend and certainly don't take orders from some faceless guy on the internet. Get you!



No, I cannot and at this point in time, will not. Because I do not agree that sexual imagery was used, as you describe, in the example you gave. You have not yet provided any other hard evidence that there has ever been a case where it has been used. I refuse to answer the question based on what I think, you think sexual imagery constitutes for reasons previously stated.
Grasping at straws. Unjustified indignance. Unproven claim. False dichotomy. Blustery bloviation. Total hedging. Repeated failure to answer a direct question.

Yep, it's a bluesjnr post.