A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What's the impact of dressing our children as adults?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old June 15th 06, 07:13 PM posted to misc.kids
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What's the impact of dressing our children as adults?

In article , bizby40 says...


"sha68" wrote in message
oups.com...
I do have one comment for the author of the original tread... my
first
thoughts on seeing your post was oh a sensible conversation for this
day and age, but after having a look at your blogsite i was thinking
what is a grown man doing looking for pictures of children all over
the
net and posting them. You should bare in mind that rightly or
wrongly
the parents of those children have allowed them to be taken and
placed
within the catalogues but they have not given you permission to use
them, which is a violation in its self. Although you would be
horrified
i am sure you must see that to a peodphile this is porn laid out for
him without the risk of police involvement, don't make it easier for
the perverts to get stimulis. I suggest you remove them and fight
your
battle with words after all the pen is mightier than the sword.

The world does need more people fighting to protect our children but
we
must be sure of the purety of the methods used.


I think I'm going to have to speak up for the OP. I followed her
link, not knowing what I might find, and what I found are mainly
mainstream clothing ads for kids. Though there are some that are a
bit provocative, the majority are not. And the ones that are
provocative are generally less so than the Brooke Shields "Can you
believe I'm only 10?" ads of many years ago.

I don't know the legality of reposting the pictures -- I thought it
was okay if you weren't reproducing them for commercial purposes.
Think of Leno and his "headlines" or Consumer Reports "Selling it".
It might be that she needs to reference the original ad in some way?


She has rearranged the pictures since the original post; the one with a female
young teen or preteen with an open shirt and posing a bit provacatively used to
be on the top, with the more provacative ones near the top.




But I do think that making her point without the pictures would be
difficult. People reading this thread without following the link have
focused on "inappropriate" clothing, particularly sexually
inappropriate. It is clear from the pictures that she is referring to
even perfectly conservative adult clothing. One picture that struck
me was of a little boy of maybe 4, wearing a sport coat. The way he
was posed, it looked like he was in the middle of a business deal.

As for pedophiles -- well, there are pictures of kids all over the
net. They can get the same thrill by going to the JC Penney website
if that's what they want. I just don't see that her much less well
known website is going to do anything at all to encourage pedophilia
or give anyone their jollies.


Well, yeah, but not all compiled with talk on Usenet making it easy for search
engines to boot.

At this point, I do think she's on the up and up. She does need to formulate
her objections better, and take more care with her presentation.

Banty


--

  #52  
Old June 15th 06, 07:19 PM posted to misc.kids
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What's the impact of dressing our children as adults?


bizby40 wrote:
"sha68" wrote in message
ups.com...
I do have one comment for the author of the original tread... my
first
thoughts on seeing your post was oh a sensible conversation for this
day and age, but after having a look at your blogsite i was thinking
what is a grown man doing looking for pictures of children all over
the
net and posting them. You should bare in mind that rightly or
wrongly
the parents of those children have allowed them to be taken and
placed
within the catalogues but they have not given you permission to use
them, which is a violation in its self. Although you would be
horrified
i am sure you must see that to a peodphile this is porn laid out for
him without the risk of police involvement, don't make it easier for
the perverts to get stimulis. I suggest you remove them and fight
your
battle with words after all the pen is mightier than the sword.

The world does need more people fighting to protect our children but
we
must be sure of the purety of the methods used.


I think I'm going to have to speak up for the OP. I followed her
link, not knowing what I might find, and what I found are mainly
mainstream clothing ads for kids. Though there are some that are a
bit provocative, the majority are not. And the ones that are
provocative are generally less so than the Brooke Shields "Can you
believe I'm only 10?" ads of many years ago.


You know, I can't put my finger on it, but something just seems 'off'
to me re. the OP. (Hence my 'Humbert Humber' comment to Banty). Maybe
it was the generic opener, maybe the jump to pedophiles and sexual
predators, maybe it's all the misspellings and awkward constructions.
But it just doesn't feel upfront (to me). (Of course, I admit to
chuckling over the 'nuisances of the advertisements' a few OP posts
back. But I think s/he meant to say nuance...just like the 'well fair'
of children.)

I don't know the legality of reposting the pictures -- I thought it
was okay if you weren't reproducing them for commercial purposes.
Think of Leno and his "headlines" or Consumer Reports "Selling it".
It might be that she needs to reference the original ad in some way?

But I do think that making her point without the pictures would be
difficult. People reading this thread without following the link have
focused on "inappropriate" clothing, particularly sexually
inappropriate.


Dunno. Seems like a lot of m.k regulars can call up a mental image of
the mother-daughter dresses in Hanna Andersson, or generate an accurate
picture of a little boy dressed in a (Wooden Solider/Lands' End) suit.
I think the website is a ploy.

Geez, I'm a crank today. But I can't shake the feeling that there's
something off here.

Caledonia

  #53  
Old June 15th 06, 07:34 PM posted to misc.kids
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What's the impact of dressing our children as adults?


L. wrote:

I have noticed that the Disney Channel - of all places - promotes this.
Almost every character of pre-teen and teen age is almost always
dressed "too maturely" for their character's age, IMO - and almost all
have *way* too much make-up on. In fact, many of the characters are
portrayed by actors/tresses much older than the characters (Brenda Song
is 18, Ashley Tsdale is 21, for example - both play 16 year-olds).


In my tv watching, I've seen the opposite trend - the trunks that
boxers wear are now almost mid-calf length, and the waistbands are
slightly below the rib cage (yes, I know the reason for the waistband
-- but seriously, these trunks are huge...). These things are starting
to resemble pup tents made out of lame.

As for the clothing - people obviously want to buy the stuff - that's
why it is marketed. But I cringe every time I see a 12 or 9 or 6 year
old in a belly shirt, short shorts and/or "women's" shoes - ones with
big heels and/or tiny straps and glittery, etc.


I'm not so sure that people want to buy the stuff, but rather that it's
available and inexpensive. It's hard to find conservative kid clothes
in KMart (excluding their long underwear -- all cotton! not
flame-retardant! They also have great hunters' red caps and vests in
kid sizes -- great for when you don't want your child to be mistaken
for a deer during a walk. Beyond that, I could find nothing...), and I
saw no non-character-emblazoned shoes at Payless. Target is sequined
shirts -- but only $2.99 a t-shirt. Hanna Andersson is plain and
conservative -- with 2 T-shirts for $30.

AFAIC, the parents are to blame for the inappropriate dress. And I see
it a lot in places I shop locally.


Most kids I see around town and at the schools are dressed pretty darn
conservatively (including the hippie-chick -- or is it chic? -- look),
with minimal logos (including minimal designer logos). But it's a lot
pricier to pull off such a look. When I go to the mall (a few towns
over), the kids there are dressed in a cheesier trashier style -- but
the demographics there are different than here.

Caledonia

  #54  
Old June 15th 06, 07:59 PM posted to misc.kids
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What's the impact of dressing our children as adults?

In article . com, Caledonia
says...


bizby40 wrote:
"sha68" wrote in message
ups.com...
I do have one comment for the author of the original tread... my
first
thoughts on seeing your post was oh a sensible conversation for this
day and age, but after having a look at your blogsite i was thinking
what is a grown man doing looking for pictures of children all over
the
net and posting them. You should bare in mind that rightly or
wrongly
the parents of those children have allowed them to be taken and
placed
within the catalogues but they have not given you permission to use
them, which is a violation in its self. Although you would be
horrified
i am sure you must see that to a peodphile this is porn laid out for
him without the risk of police involvement, don't make it easier for
the perverts to get stimulis. I suggest you remove them and fight
your
battle with words after all the pen is mightier than the sword.

The world does need more people fighting to protect our children but
we
must be sure of the purety of the methods used.


I think I'm going to have to speak up for the OP. I followed her
link, not knowing what I might find, and what I found are mainly
mainstream clothing ads for kids. Though there are some that are a
bit provocative, the majority are not. And the ones that are
provocative are generally less so than the Brooke Shields "Can you
believe I'm only 10?" ads of many years ago.


You know, I can't put my finger on it, but something just seems 'off'
to me re. the OP. (Hence my 'Humbert Humber' comment to Banty). Maybe
it was the generic opener, maybe the jump to pedophiles and sexual
predators, maybe it's all the misspellings and awkward constructions.
But it just doesn't feel upfront (to me). (Of course, I admit to
chuckling over the 'nuisances of the advertisements' a few OP posts
back. But I think s/he meant to say nuance...just like the 'well fair'
of children.)


That might be a spell-Saggitarius problem (referring to a pretty funny spell
chequer problem of a few years ago...)


I don't know the legality of reposting the pictures -- I thought it
was okay if you weren't reproducing them for commercial purposes.
Think of Leno and his "headlines" or Consumer Reports "Selling it".
It might be that she needs to reference the original ad in some way?

But I do think that making her point without the pictures would be
difficult. People reading this thread without following the link have
focused on "inappropriate" clothing, particularly sexually
inappropriate.


Dunno. Seems like a lot of m.k regulars can call up a mental image of
the mother-daughter dresses in Hanna Andersson, or generate an accurate
picture of a little boy dressed in a (Wooden Solider/Lands' End) suit.
I think the website is a ploy.

Geez, I'm a crank today. But I can't shake the feeling that there's
something off here.


Well, yeah - it's that (other than a desire to play "ain't it awful" maybe)
there really wasn't a well-formulated set of objections. Like the poster was
surprised there'd, um, actually be the discussion he/she called for.

Banty


--

  #55  
Old June 15th 06, 08:24 PM posted to misc.kids
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What's the impact of dressing our children as adults?


"Caledonia" wrote in message
ups.com...

bizby40 wrote:
"sha68" wrote in message
ups.com...
I do have one comment for the author of the original tread... my
first
thoughts on seeing your post was oh a sensible conversation for this
day and age, but after having a look at your blogsite i was thinking
what is a grown man doing looking for pictures of children all over
the
net and posting them. You should bare in mind that rightly or
wrongly
the parents of those children have allowed them to be taken and
placed
within the catalogues but they have not given you permission to use
them, which is a violation in its self. Although you would be
horrified
i am sure you must see that to a peodphile this is porn laid out for
him without the risk of police involvement, don't make it easier for
the perverts to get stimulis. I suggest you remove them and fight
your
battle with words after all the pen is mightier than the sword.

The world does need more people fighting to protect our children but
we
must be sure of the purety of the methods used.


I think I'm going to have to speak up for the OP. I followed her
link, not knowing what I might find, and what I found are mainly
mainstream clothing ads for kids. Though there are some that are a
bit provocative, the majority are not. And the ones that are
provocative are generally less so than the Brooke Shields "Can you
believe I'm only 10?" ads of many years ago.


You know, I can't put my finger on it, but something just seems 'off'
to me re. the OP. (Hence my 'Humbert Humber' comment to Banty). Maybe
it was the generic opener, maybe the jump to pedophiles and sexual
predators, maybe it's all the misspellings and awkward constructions.
But it just doesn't feel upfront (to me). (Of course, I admit to
chuckling over the 'nuisances of the advertisements' a few OP posts
back. But I think s/he meant to say nuance...just like the 'well fair'
of children.)

I don't know the legality of reposting the pictures -- I thought it
was okay if you weren't reproducing them for commercial purposes.
Think of Leno and his "headlines" or Consumer Reports "Selling it".
It might be that she needs to reference the original ad in some way?

But I do think that making her point without the pictures would be
difficult. People reading this thread without following the link have
focused on "inappropriate" clothing, particularly sexually
inappropriate.


Dunno. Seems like a lot of m.k regulars can call up a mental image of
the mother-daughter dresses in Hanna Andersson, or generate an accurate
picture of a little boy dressed in a (Wooden Solider/Lands' End) suit.
I think the website is a ploy.

Geez, I'm a crank today. But I can't shake the feeling that there's
something off here.

Caledonia


He/she is posting from the University of Missouri, so maybe it's a college
student. I do find it odd that someone who claims to be a teacher can't
spell "pedophilia".


  #56  
Old June 15th 06, 08:29 PM posted to misc.kids
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What's the impact of dressing our children as adults?

In article Ftikg.45240$%m5.25236@trnddc04,
"dejablues" wrote:

"Caledonia" wrote in message
ups.com...

bizby40 wrote:
"sha68" wrote in message
ups.com...
I do have one comment for the author of the original tread... my
first
thoughts on seeing your post was oh a sensible conversation for this
day and age, but after having a look at your blogsite i was thinking
what is a grown man doing looking for pictures of children all over
the
net and posting them. You should bare in mind that rightly or
wrongly
the parents of those children have allowed them to be taken and
placed
within the catalogues but they have not given you permission to use
them, which is a violation in its self. Although you would be
horrified
i am sure you must see that to a peodphile this is porn laid out for
him without the risk of police involvement, don't make it easier for
the perverts to get stimulis. I suggest you remove them and fight
your
battle with words after all the pen is mightier than the sword.

The world does need more people fighting to protect our children but
we
must be sure of the purety of the methods used.

I think I'm going to have to speak up for the OP. I followed her
link, not knowing what I might find, and what I found are mainly
mainstream clothing ads for kids. Though there are some that are a
bit provocative, the majority are not. And the ones that are
provocative are generally less so than the Brooke Shields "Can you
believe I'm only 10?" ads of many years ago.


You know, I can't put my finger on it, but something just seems 'off'
to me re. the OP. (Hence my 'Humbert Humber' comment to Banty). Maybe
it was the generic opener, maybe the jump to pedophiles and sexual
predators, maybe it's all the misspellings and awkward constructions.
But it just doesn't feel upfront (to me). (Of course, I admit to
chuckling over the 'nuisances of the advertisements' a few OP posts
back. But I think s/he meant to say nuance...just like the 'well fair'
of children.)

I don't know the legality of reposting the pictures -- I thought it
was okay if you weren't reproducing them for commercial purposes.
Think of Leno and his "headlines" or Consumer Reports "Selling it".
It might be that she needs to reference the original ad in some way?

But I do think that making her point without the pictures would be
difficult. People reading this thread without following the link have
focused on "inappropriate" clothing, particularly sexually
inappropriate.


Dunno. Seems like a lot of m.k regulars can call up a mental image of
the mother-daughter dresses in Hanna Andersson, or generate an accurate
picture of a little boy dressed in a (Wooden Solider/Lands' End) suit.
I think the website is a ploy.

Geez, I'm a crank today. But I can't shake the feeling that there's
something off here.

Caledonia


He/she is posting from the University of Missouri, so maybe it's a college
student. I do find it odd that someone who claims to be a teacher can't
spell "pedophilia".



I don't. I've been amazed at some of the things that have come home
from school -- grammatical and spelling errors that could not be
attributed to simple typos.

Of course, I can't spell worth beans -- I'm convinced good spelling is
an art form, and one I'm just not very good at (though I continue to
improve with time.) It makes doing crosswork puzzles interesting....
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

  #57  
Old June 15th 06, 08:49 PM posted to misc.kids
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What's the impact of dressing our children as adults?


You mean stuff like 9 year old girls wanting to look like Britney
Spears? not good.

  #58  
Old June 15th 06, 08:55 PM posted to misc.kids
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What's the impact of dressing our children as adults?

" wrote in
ups.com:

As far as your comment about my website, I absolute agree
about the danger of conglomerating pictures of children in
one place. I have VERY CAREFULLY chosen those pictures
(and left many many off) in order to both be very sensitive
to this issue but also provide examples of my concerns.


but the fact of the matter is that those pictures are
copyrighted & you are in violation by putting them on your
site... especially because you don't give any credits to the
proper owners of the copyrights. that could cost you loads of
money if the owners find out about them.

I want to be very responsible with the putting of these
pictures together. However, the use of these pictures are
to use to illustrate a point. I am absolutely appauled at
what I see and I want others to equally be concerned. I
have retrieved these pictures on the internet and link to
their appropriate site.

And for the record, I am no man. I am a young woman, a
school teacher in fact, who is deeply concerned with the
well fair of children. My own experience with childhood
sexual abuse drives me to encourage parents to stop buying
these outfits, other consumers to stop patronizing
businesses who inappropriately advertise children and for
us as a society to consider how we may be putting our
children in harms way.


for a teacher your use of English is atrocious. what grade do
you teach?
lee
  #59  
Old June 15th 06, 09:04 PM posted to misc.kids
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What's the impact of dressing our children as adults?


dragonlady wrote:
In article Ftikg.45240$%m5.25236@trnddc04,
"dejablues" wrote:

"Caledonia" wrote in message
ups.com...

bizby40 wrote:
"sha68" wrote in message
ups.com...
I do have one comment for the author of the original tread... my
first
thoughts on seeing your post was oh a sensible conversation for this
day and age, but after having a look at your blogsite i was thinking
what is a grown man doing looking for pictures of children all over
the
net and posting them. You should bare in mind that rightly or
wrongly
the parents of those children have allowed them to be taken and
placed
within the catalogues but they have not given you permission to use
them, which is a violation in its self. Although you would be
horrified
i am sure you must see that to a peodphile this is porn laid out for
him without the risk of police involvement, don't make it easier for
the perverts to get stimulis. I suggest you remove them and fight
your
battle with words after all the pen is mightier than the sword.

The world does need more people fighting to protect our children but
we
must be sure of the purety of the methods used.

I think I'm going to have to speak up for the OP. I followed her
link, not knowing what I might find, and what I found are mainly
mainstream clothing ads for kids. Though there are some that are a
bit provocative, the majority are not. And the ones that are
provocative are generally less so than the Brooke Shields "Can you
believe I'm only 10?" ads of many years ago.

You know, I can't put my finger on it, but something just seems 'off'
to me re. the OP. (Hence my 'Humbert Humber' comment to Banty). Maybe
it was the generic opener, maybe the jump to pedophiles and sexual
predators, maybe it's all the misspellings and awkward constructions.
But it just doesn't feel upfront (to me). (Of course, I admit to
chuckling over the 'nuisances of the advertisements' a few OP posts
back. But I think s/he meant to say nuance...just like the 'well fair'
of children.)

I don't know the legality of reposting the pictures -- I thought it
was okay if you weren't reproducing them for commercial purposes.
Think of Leno and his "headlines" or Consumer Reports "Selling it".
It might be that she needs to reference the original ad in some way?

But I do think that making her point without the pictures would be
difficult. People reading this thread without following the link have
focused on "inappropriate" clothing, particularly sexually
inappropriate.

Dunno. Seems like a lot of m.k regulars can call up a mental image of
the mother-daughter dresses in Hanna Andersson, or generate an accurate
picture of a little boy dressed in a (Wooden Solider/Lands' End) suit.
I think the website is a ploy.

Geez, I'm a crank today. But I can't shake the feeling that there's
something off here.

Caledonia


He/she is posting from the University of Missouri, so maybe it's a college
student. I do find it odd that someone who claims to be a teacher can't
spell "pedophilia".



I don't. I've been amazed at some of the things that have come home
from school -- grammatical and spelling errors that could not be
attributed to simple typos.

Of course, I can't spell worth beans -- I'm convinced good spelling is
an art form, and one I'm just not very good at (though I continue to
improve with time.) It makes doing crosswork puzzles interesting....


I have a sister who has horrible spelling -- and is an amazing Boggle
player. While I'm patting myself on the back for coming up with 'rat -
rate,' she's coming up with 'ameliorate.' It's boggling...

Caledonia

  #60  
Old June 15th 06, 09:16 PM posted to misc.kids
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What's the impact of dressing our children as adults?


"Michelle J. Haines" wrote in message
...
When helping our oldest choose clothing, we are
picky about length of skirts/shorts, and length of shirts. We don't
allow bare belly in our house. (Something that can be difficult to
enforce, because my children are all long-waisted, and the hems of
shirts keep going up while the waists of pants go down.)


You are in luck right now! The latest fashions are long polo shirts with
longer tanks to wear under them, tunics, and long gauzy skirts that hit
almost ankle length. For some reason the fashion stars are in alignment.
I'm letting my kids stock up now, since I don't know what the next fashion
will be.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
misc.kids FAQ on Firearms Safety & Children [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 December 19th 05 06:36 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Firearms Safety & Children [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 November 18th 05 06:36 AM
Child Support Guidelines are UNFAIR! Lets join together to fight them! S Myers Child Support 115 September 12th 05 12:37 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane Foster Parents 3 December 9th 03 12:53 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Foster Parents 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.