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

In article .com,
"Caledonia" wrote:

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


That's interesting, because I, too, am an awsome Boggle player. I
sometimes have to remove words that I have spelled wrong, but I tend to
beat the snot out of most folks. I wonder if there's a relationship
between being bad at spelling and seeing a Boggle board well?

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"enigma" wrote in message
. ..
" 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

Lee, you did an excellent job pointing out the things that bothered me about
her assertions and failure to respond to the copyright violation question in
addition to her her pitiful English usage.

Thanks

Cindi

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , bizby40
says...
As for pedophiles -- well, there are pictures of kids all over the
net.

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

Maybe that's why she misspelled pedophilia in the first place. ;-)

Bizby

"Michelle J. Haines" wrote in message
...
bizby40 wrote:
I think you used the term "young children" before, which made me
think of kids too young to have a lot of input.

I still think of my nine-year-old as young, and she's had input for
five years or so.

It's just the way I think of things. 9 or 10 is an older "child",
soon to be a pre-teen, then teen, then adult. So when you said "young
child" I immediately thought of 5 year olds. And as you snipped, DD
has also had some input on her clothes for a long time, but has only
recently begun to worry about what the other kids are wearing and
wanting to fit in.

DD and the other girls are in the transitional period now. I'll
admit that I do cringe at some of the belly baring halter tops.
But then I think back to my own childhood.

Well, I dressed much more conservatively than my sister did. But
really, I don't -care- what I was or wasn't wearing "back then". It
doesn't really have a lot of impact on what I think is or isn't
appropriate now. Back then I lacked insight.

Well, you sure have the right to decide what you think is appropriate
for your children. I've been surprised at what I cringe at though.
As I said, DD doesn't go for anything too tight or skimpy, but she
does like those shirts with sassy sayings, and I hate those! In fact,
it was my own objections that got me started thinking about what I
wore as a child, and realizing that neither my parents nor I thought
twice about things that seem tight and/or skimpy by todays standards.
It wasn't everything I owned of course, and these were "play clothes".
I wouldn't have worn them to school. But then again, we were required
to wear long pants to school until I was in high school.

DD did get that 2 piece bathing suit, but otherwise has never
wanted anything belly-baring or ultra short.

Our children are allow two-piece bathing suits, in fact, I prefer
them...but the tankini style, not the bikini style, if it can be
found.

Yeah, that's exactly what she went for. I'm amazed at how many
bathing suits in her size (size 7 kids) have bathing suit tops that
seem to expect to be "filled out". She had a hard time finding a two
piece that was completely flat.

Bizby

bizby40 wrote:
"Michelle J. Haines" wrote in message
...
bizby40 wrote:
I think you used the term "young children" before, which made me
think of kids too young to have a lot of input.

I still think of my nine-year-old as young, and she's had input for
five years or so.

It's just the way I think of things. 9 or 10 is an older "child",
soon to be a pre-teen, then teen, then adult. So when you said "young
child" I immediately thought of 5 year olds. And as you snipped, DD
has also had some input on her clothes for a long time, but has only
recently begun to worry about what the other kids are wearing and
wanting to fit in.

DD and the other girls are in the transitional period now. I'll
admit that I do cringe at some of the belly baring halter tops.
But then I think back to my own childhood.

Well, I dressed much more conservatively than my sister did. But
really, I don't -care- what I was or wasn't wearing "back then". It
doesn't really have a lot of impact on what I think is or isn't
appropriate now. Back then I lacked insight.

Well, you sure have the right to decide what you think is appropriate
for your children. I've been surprised at what I cringe at though.
As I said, DD doesn't go for anything too tight or skimpy, but she
does like those shirts with sassy sayings, and I hate those! In fact,
it was my own objections that got me started thinking about what I
wore as a child, and realizing that neither my parents nor I thought
twice about things that seem tight and/or skimpy by todays standards.
It wasn't everything I owned of course, and these were "play clothes".
I wouldn't have worn them to school. But then again, we were required
to wear long pants to school until I was in high school.

DD did get that 2 piece bathing suit, but otherwise has never
wanted anything belly-baring or ultra short.

Our children are allow two-piece bathing suits, in fact, I prefer
them...but the tankini style, not the bikini style, if it can be
found.

Yeah, that's exactly what she went for. I'm amazed at how many
bathing suits in her size (size 7 kids) have bathing suit tops that
seem to expect to be "filled out". She had a hard time finding a two
piece that was completely flat.

I've been informed by my daughter and her peers (think first graders
going into second grade, ~ size 7), that *the* thing to be wearing is
rashguard-type tops with long surfer bottoms. Failing that, a one-piece
(down-to-the-elbows and knees) high SPF zip-up suit is also cool.

I'm not-so-secretly pleased. Now if only it would stop raining, we
could actually go to the beach....

Caledonia

"Caledonia" wrote in message
oups.com...

bizby40 wrote:
Yeah, that's exactly what she went for. I'm amazed at how many
bathing suits in her size (size 7 kids) have bathing suit tops that
seem to expect to be "filled out". She had a hard time finding a
two
piece that was completely flat.

I've been informed by my daughter and her peers (think first graders
going into second grade, ~ size 7), that *the* thing to be wearing
is

Heh, DD is 10 and going into middle school next year -- she's just
tiny.

rashguard-type tops with long surfer bottoms. Failing that, a
one-piece
(down-to-the-elbows and knees) high SPF zip-up suit is also cool.

:-) Actually, that's exactly what my son wears. He's tiny too -- at
age 8, I had to get him all XS (4-5) clothes!!! I *know* I used to
get him 6s! Can he be shrinking?

Bizby

Knit Chic wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...
My question is to start a conversation about the impact of dressing
kids like adults. I have really been hit hard in my conviction about
how we dress kids in adult-like outfits but are outraged over
pediphilia.

Pedophiles are pedophiles, no matter how a child dresses. To blame child
sexual abuse on dress takes the responsibility away from the perpetrator.
It's ALWAYS the perpetrators fault for abusing a child.
-----------------
You're blabbering brainwashed American antisexual mumbo-jumbo.

The actual number of "pedophiles" in society is miniscule. These
are men who are mentally fixated on pre-pubescence because they
were severely traumatized at a certain age about such things.

These are RARE deviants who will take children and then panic
and kill them out of fear of discovery when the child panics.
If they weren't so endangered by law-enforcement they wouldn't
feel the need to kill the child, and the result would be fewer
dead children!

In actuality what most Americans, sexually backward neurotics,
regard as "molesters" are their normal male heterosexual relatives
who are who are victims of this antisexual fundamentalist society
and were denied early appropriate sexual experience as young kids
with other kids their age and are now attracted to young sexuality
because of their deficit of these experiences and mistakenly try
to recoup it now if the opportunity presents itself with a horny
curious young teen. MOST males and even MOST females will accept
sexual opportunity with a horny willing young pubescent, if the
situation presents itself, and Americans get this confused with
"molestation", which has nothing to do with horny teenagers!!

When I was young it was clear that molestation applied only to
clearly pre-pubescent and pre-curious children, and "dirty old
men" trying to interest them in sex before they wanted any.

But Americans have become confused at the way it is being used
now as some catch-all phrase describing any statutorily illegal
sexual contact, when there used to be a clear category that
separated those into all normal heterosexual, but frowned upon
indisgressions with horny teens, and recognized the role of
teens soliciting such behavior, versus other seriously dangerous
deviancy involving desperate pedophiles with truly non-sexual
children. It did NOT involve anyone with breasts or public hair!

But in the latest incarnation of the antisexual sickness that is
America, the rabid antisexuals out there want to confuse everyone
into regarding any and everything they can possibly conceive of as
religiously "unclean" or embarrasing to them, as serious felonies
involving the need for life prison terms and social ostracism,
evident in the moronic TV expose's where they purport to entertain
us by entrapping confused middle-aged men into thinking they're
going to get lucky with a real live teenage girl and then having
him arrested in a televised life-ruining spectacle!!

Reminds me of bread and circuses in the arena in ancient Rome,
taking the latest trumped-up public enemy and tossing him to
the lions and selling tickets and beer and nachos.

America is a sick bunch of ****s.
Steve

sha68 wrote:
I have read through this conversation with interest both as a mother of
five girls and as a person who buy lots of childrens clothing.

We had this same conversation the other night at dinner, there were 6
adults with 14 children between us. We all agreed that although
clothing manufacturers should take a more liberal line when designing
kids clothing to avoid over sexualising children, mothers and fathers
don't have to buy it.

The power in what children wear is with parents.

I totally agree.


but the sick and twisted phedophile doesn't care what his victims are
wearing his sickness will out whatever the child is wearing.

Dressing baby girls like sluts is fodder for the pron industry, though.


My children have a dresscode which is strictly adhered to even the 18
year old now says she is glad her clothes are no the conservative side
because she feels that people treat her with more respect, including
boys her own age.

So isn't the issue of provocative clothing really an issue sorted
within households, Teaching children to respect themselves in all walks
of their lives is a big key to this.

ITA.

After all if there is no market for this kind of clothing the
manufacterers will stop making them.

ITA - but like the OP said, many in some cultures think it's "cute".
It' makes me sick.
-L.

Actually I find most of the stuff like this vomitous. Why the hell do
we have to dress little kids like mini-adults? What's wrong with cute,
CHILDREN'S clothing? I get so disgusted every time I go to buy
something for DS (almost 2.5) and all I can find are mini button-down
shirts, khakis, etc., which look like the clothing my husband wears for
work...
I need to find some of those for Xavier. He looks so cute in button down
but all the ones we have show off his tummy, I love Khakis too I would wear
them almost exclusivly if I could afford them in my size.. Dont tell my MIL
though she is tired of my black pants :P

Tori

you can't go by advertising to see what children actually
wear. go out to a park or something & look at some real kids.
for the most part you *won't* see kids dressed in slutty or
even "miniature adult" clothes. you'll see jeans, t-shirts,
shorts, tanktops, probably sweatpants (which is my big
bugbear. i really dislike seeing sweatpants out in public,
although i'll tend to be charitable if they're on kids of
toilet training age).

Jeff thinks I am kookie that I wont wear sweats out of the house and I just
tell him they are inside cloths and I refuse to wear them out. He does all
the time.. He can look goofy all he wants. Those are the days I am glad I
am the only one dressing the kids.

Tori