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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |