Children's fashion

[sammie19]

Can anyone tell me what this latest intrusion into the lives of families and children means? What does sexualising children's fashion mean exactly? It is surely unworkable and almost anything children wear can be considered sexualising. Does this mean skirts of such and such a length, or no skirts, no children's swimwear and certainly no children's bikinis?

I am all for protecting children from paedophiles but desexualising and dulling down children's clothing is no more of a deterrent to a paedophile as ankle length dresses and skirts or trousers and jeans are to a rapist.

A school in Glasgow has told its pupils parents not to send their children in to school in short skirts or tights trousers because it is likely to endanger those children because of their lure to paedophiles.

As a child my mother dressed me up in pretty very girly clothes, much of which was tots and young girls copies of the styles worn by adults. Arguably these could be considered "sexualising". A I grew older, from the age of 7 or 8 I wanted to be more like the girls in the street or the stars on the telly in the way I dress. I chose for myself most of my clothes from about that age and from 11 or 12 I would not wear anything unless I liked it or chose it for myself.

I see the British government's decision to interfere in children's fashion as an attack on the freedom of expression of a huge suathe of our population on the basis that adults know best. Or more likely that prude's do. This puritanisation of how we live and dress is an insult to parents and also to children who dont want lumbered with clothes which they dont want or think they look good in. What is inappropriate?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/03/cameron-backed-report-commercialisation-childhood
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/05/children-sexuality-naipaul-kate-moss

[softfruit]

At the moment it means pretty much nothing at all, as it's just an external think-tank type report. Loads of those happen.

If various parties had signed up to doing whatever the report proposed - such as for example Labour and Conservatives had done with the Browne report on student funding as part of their election manifestos last year - then we could expect something specific to come of it.

As it is, it may very well go nowhere bar providing the prude press some excited headlines - in particular it did a good job of that in April, by sheer coincidence (ahem) the run up to the local elections.

[Darkside2009]

I think they are trying to protect children from exploitation by unscrupulous retailers whose only motive is money.

Sex sells, controversy sells, as retailers markets have become saturated and competition from competitors fiercer, they have had to seek out new markets. If retailers think you as an individual, or part of a demographic group have money, they will try to part you from it. Making you, the target, believe you are less than adequate if you do not own their car, perfume, watch, clothes or whatever. They are trying to sell a lifestyle.

More and more over the years this has been directed at children for sales of clothes, cosmetics, video-games, music and dvd's.

Children are an easy market, more than any other group, they like to emulate, whether it be their peers or someone they see on television. This can lead to a distorted reality of what life is like.

I seem to remember in the UK, a nation-wide chain of high street shops being forced by customer complaints to withdraw padded bras for eight or nine year olds. It was only customer complaints that forced this decision upon them, bad publicity isn't good for business.

If you couple unscrupulous advertisers with feckless parents the children can end up with all sorts of problems from bulimia, anorexia, to the inappropriate projection of a sexually available person.

Just as we restrict children's access to legally buy alcohol or cigarettes for their own protection, I think it appropriate to protect them from advertisers too, who might exploit their innocence and naivety.

Once they reach adulthood, they can make those decisions for themselves.

[drugstore cowboy]

It's the parents who force their kids to dress up and perform in pagents that are freaky.

Look at Jon Benet Ramsey's parents if you need an example.

I also think it would be a good thing to protect children from Advertisers or people who think of them as walking billboards for their clothing and clothing designs.

[Long Duck Dong]

the trouble sammie, is how we are thinking about it.... as we are talking from our own perspective and how we view children.....

how we view children is not how pedophiles view, they see them as sexual beings, we don't..... and in a number of cases, the police and other investigative depts have found images of children dressed in tight pants and short skirts on sex offenders computers.... and clothing is one of the first things to attract them........

it may be a attack by the government on childs rights and fashion in your eyes, but they are trying to protect the children from sexual predators....and this is one of the options they are looking at.....

the is the trouble with rights, as we are seeing everything in terms of our rights, not the result of having rights...... and personally, I would rather restrict the childrens rights to wear clothes that attract sexual predators, than let the children have their rights and wear what they want, then blame the police and government for not doing enuf to protect our children.....

personally I would love to round up people that touch children and shove the bastards on a remote island far from society..... and the parents that let the children dress in provocative clothing and let them walk the streets alone... attracting the attention of predators

[DuckiesDarling]

I think they are trying to protect children from exploitation by unscrupulous retailers whose only motive is money.

Sex sells, controversy sells, as retailers markets have become saturated and competition from competitors fiercer, they have had to seek out new markets. If retailers think you as an individual, or part of a demographic group have money, they will try to part you from it. Making you, the target, believe you are less than adequate if you do not own their car, perfume, watch, clothes or whatever. They are trying to sell a lifestyle.

More and more over the years this has been directed at children for sales of clothes, cosmetics, video-games, music and dvd's.

Children are an easy market, more than any other group, they like to emulate, whether it be their peers or someone they see on television. This can lead to a distorted reality of what life is like.

I seem to remember in the UK, a nation-wide chain of high street shops being forced by customer complaints to withdraw padded bras for eight or nine year olds. It was only customer complaints that forced this decision upon them, bad publicity isn't good for business.

If you couple unscrupulous advertisers with feckless parents the children can end up with all sorts of problems from bulimia, anorexia, to the inappropriate projection of a sexually available person.

Just as we restrict children's access to legally buy alcohol or cigarettes for their own protection, I think it appropriate to protect them from advertisers too, who might exploit their innocence and naivety.

Once they reach adulthood, they can make those decisions for themselves.

Pretty much agree with most of this post. Children's clothes here in the US in just the last 10 years have become sexier. Is it because some kids reach puberty earlier or is kids reaching puberty earlier because of more sexual influences in their lives with fashion, television and movies? It's why I favor uniforms for schools. It stops a lot of things including bullies that like to find any reason at all to pick on another kid, be it looks, clothes or having freckles or glasses or braces.

[sammie19]

This is not about exploitation by retailers to make money or paedophiles. It is about controlling our need to be sexual beings, and our choice to be what we want to be. What we as adults wear does not deter rapists, and neither does the clothes children wear deter paedophiles.

There is a saying "give me the boy and I will give you the man". That is what it is about. A deep rooted and oppressive want of one group of puritanical people to mould another group into people like them. By enforcing a dress code upon children, parents, retailers and designers we restrict freedom of choice for parents and children to dress as they think is most fitting for them, and for children to express themselves as little people with minds of their own.

This proposal is about control and is an attempt to mould our children into less vibrant, exciting, spontanious, rebellious, less free and more pliable and docile people when they become adults. It is about controlling and moulding free expression to the needs of a group of people who do not like want others to be free sexual beings with minds of their own. It is about suppressing free expression in children and as they grow, ultimately adults, and controlling permissiveness and liberty of the individual to be themselves.

In respect of school uniforms, this is in its own way a sexualisation of children, especially girls. So it is almost an inconsistency to say desexualise childrens clothing and then insist on a uniform for them on school days.

When I first went to high school I wore a school uniform of blazer, jumper(optional), tie, skirt, white shirt and stockings and black shoes. By the end of my high school days the uniform was sweat shirt white shirt and black or grey trousers or skirt and white stockings. Many schools have changed to such a uniform, but from these schools neither has bullying dropped in frequency, nor has the incidence of paedophiles preying upon their pupils, of sexual activity among pupils themselves or with other or older people outside of school.

I am not against school uniform, it was simply something I had to wear and it never bothered me. But in schools where unifroms exist and those where they dont it is other factors which determine the bullying levels or predatory levels forin many such schools,incidences of sexual predation or bullying are no higher than in those which adhereto a strict uniform code..

[sammie19]

Please dont tell me I dont try and get balance into an argument. My mum sent me this while we were chatting about sexualisation and children's clothing.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/06/sexualisation-bailey-review-children

[DuckiesDarling]

Sammie, honey, in this case I do feel you are wrong to only think it's about giving kids a chance to make their own choices. There is time to let them and time to guide them. That's why they have parents. Parents who protect, teach and love their children, parents who give them a firm foundation so they can make their choices when they are old enough to appreciate the consequences of those choices. All I see is more and more people claiming that it's all about the rights of kids, but really I gotta ask, whose right are you trying to argue for? Really the kids or the rights you thought you should have had as a child? When is a child mature enough to display what little cleavage they have? When is a child mature enough to wear miniskirts? When is a child not a child anymore? Too many people trying to make a child into a mini adult is not the answer and that is actually what you propose when you say children should have all the choices in their world. Let the kids be kids until it's time to actually face being an adult. That goes for around the world, the ages vary, but they all still deserve the right to be a child protected by loving parents. :2cents:

[Long Duck Dong]

This is not about exploitation by retailers to make money or paedophiles. It is about controlling our need to be sexual beings, and our choice to be what we want to be.

are you saying that you want children to be sexual beings, or am I misreading that ????? cos I hope to god, I have misread......

[Hephaestion]

1) Should we as adults stop making ourselves look younger e.g. shaving (smelling nice? - "Good Queen Bess bathed once a year whether she need it or no")

2) What happens if one subscribes to the idea and practice of naturism?

In the days of film, wasn't there a campaign to stop even innocent pictures of children in this arena? Has the advent of digital pictures by-pased this restriction? Has paedophilia been promoted by the digiital age and the assumtpion of anonymity? (Did I hear correctly on the radio this morning BBC ca 0500hrs that 1 in 4 hackers in the USA belongs to the either the CIA or FBI) Roll on "IP6"

3) Should beauty contests for children be more closely scrutinised?

4) What about age disparity in heterosexual / marriage unions (historically and in western pop culture). What about homosexual forays as with a Mr M Jackson?

5) Maybe the Islamic world has the right answer - the Burkha.

This stays in fashion, one size fits all, gender is not overt and it would seem that it can be "any colour so long as it's black" (Is this where Henry T got his idea from?).

.

[sammie19]

are you saying that you want children to be sexual beings, or am I misreading that ????? cos I hope to god, I have misread......

LDD,that is not what I am saying. BUt throughout their childhood, they increasingly become so. Children from a very early age in play exhibit signs of what they will be when they grow up. As a young animal in the wild in play exhibits signs and learns much of what it will be as an adult so does a human child. The difference is with that animal its natural development and instinct is not artificially suppressed by it elders.

But many children are sexual beings aren't they? From a certain age they are exactly that. I am not suggesting that they should be sexually active, but from the onset of puberty they are and increasingly become sexual. I don't think we should be discouraging that natural development.

[sammie19]

Sammie, honey, in this case I do feel you are wrong to only think it's about giving kids a chance to make their own choices. There is time to let them and time to guide them. That's why they have parents. Parents who protect, teach and love their children, parents who give them a firm foundation so they can make their choices when they are old enough to appreciate the consequences of those choices. All I see is more and more people claiming that it's all about the rights of kids, but really I gotta ask, whose right are you trying to argue for? Really the kids or the rights you thought you should have had as a child? When is a child mature enough to display what little cleavage they have? When is a child mature enough to wear miniskirts? When is a child not a child anymore? Too many people trying to make a child into a mini adult is not the answer and that is actually what you propose when you say children should have all the choices in their world. Let the kids be kids until it's time to actually face being an adult. That goes for around the world, the ages vary, but they all still deserve the right to be a child protected by loving parents. :2cents:

DD in some ways I can agree with much of this.I don't want kids to be forced into aduthood. It should be something which they should be allowed to do in their own time. I do not like the pageant circus for children and cringe when I see a precociously talented child forced by parents into a life the parents as much want for themselves as the child with all the tragedy that often follows.

It isn't that I complain about. It is that some in society feel they must dictate to children and parents what they can and cannot do in areas where it has no business. We are talking about an area of free expression.

Of course parents often influence or at least try to influence that expression, but as a child grows up it increasingly wants to be its own person. It increasingly chooses what it wants to wear for good or ill, and resents being told what its parents insist it should wear. As their sexuality burgeons, the suppression of its free expression creates resentment and even violence in the home, or children run away because of the overt pressures and restrictions placed on them by overbearing parents.

The question you raised of mini skirts is an odd one to me. Ever since I can remember parents have dressed up their baby girls in what are in effect mini skirts and dresses and I mean baby girls. My mum tells me in fact that it was the case even when she was a young girl and she has photographs of her school primary classes with skirts of length 3 to 4" above the knee and I dread to think what some would make of her early high school photographs and photographs exist of both her and me as children toddling in a very short dress or skirt with the bottoms of our nappies or knickers showing. Not quite pukka that is it in the context of what seems to be wanted by some pople.

I agree that kids need to be love and protected by their parents. But part of that love and protection isnt suppressing what they want to wear, and so suppressing their free expression of who they want to be. That changes as they grow into adults but suppressing free expression and thought is exactly what this plan is all about, not protecting children at all although they would like us to think that.

[Long Duck Dong]

LDD,that is not what I am saying. BUt throughout their childhood, they increasingly become so. Children from a very early age in play exhibit signs of what they will be when they grow up. As a young animal in the wild in play exhibits signs and learns much of what it will be as an adult so does a human child. The difference is with that animal its natural development and instinct is not artificially suppressed by it elders.

But many children are sexual beings aren't they? From a certain age they are exactly that. I am not suggesting that they should be sexually active, but from the onset of puberty they are and increasingly become sexual. I don't think we should be discouraging that natural development.

teenagers are sexual beings, adults are sexual beings, children are children....

there is a large difference between a teenager and a children.... teens are rebelling, children are following our examples....

[DuckiesDarling]

Sammie there is a large difference between a baby's dress where a diaper might show and a mini skirt. Bottom line if a child's outfit makes you think "sexy" it's not for a child.

[sammie19]

teenagers are sexual beings, adults are sexual beings, children are children....

Children are children with their own wants and needs. They have a burgeoning sexuality of their own from a very young age. They are sexual beings from a very young age even if they do not understand what it is.That sexuality infuences how they feel and how they want to appear, who they are influenced by and by what.

A teenager of 13 is still child and a child of 11who is in puberty remains a child. But they are still very much sexual human beings.

In our law a child is a child until the age of 18 but children may have sex and even marry from the age of 16.

Children are children, but they are not just children. They are complex human beings in their own right and we interfere with their free expression at our peril.

[Long Duck Dong]

Children are children with their own wants and needs. They have a burgeoning sexuality of their own from a very young age. They are sexual beings from a very young age even if they do not understand what it is.That sexuality infuences how they feel and how they want to appear, who they are influenced by and by what.

A teenager of 13 is still child and a child of 11who is in puberty remains a child. But they are still very much sexual human beings.

In our law a child is a child until the age of 18 but children may have sex and even marry from the age of 16.

Children are children, but they are not just children. they are complex human beings in their own right and we interfere with their free expression at our peril.

its called being a parent.... and drawing the line somewhere......

we have children in NZ well under the age of 16 that are first and in some cases, second time parents.... yet our age of consent is 16.... but they are told its about your rights to express yourself....

I would ask how many children you have, sammie, but I already know the answer.....

[sammie19]

I would ask how many children you have, sammie, but I already know the answer.....

No I dont have children. But not so long ago I was one, and remember very clearly how it felt, what I wanted and how I wanted to express myself. I am in the company of and play with children regularly and know their frustrations at being deprived free expression. This does not qualify me as a parent but I listen and hear many of the same frustrations I expressed as a child and worse, and many of the other children I knew.

I see and hear some children positively stifled because of over protective and often prudish parenting, their ability to express themselves orally restricted and limited, often backward, and lacking in confidence because of that over protection. Unless we are allowed the maximum free expression as children then as adults we lose much of our creativity and inspiration and as adults we may never fully achieve our full potential.

No one can ever be entirely free of some form of restraint in their lives and in their freedom of expression, but in how we dress is one area that parents and children together must decide not some airey fairey bunch of prudes who will impose a dress code from on high. How we dress is not a trivial matter and I think you agree if from a different perspective.

People hear the word "fashion" and think bimbo. We should not be slaves to fashion but nor should we allow those who think they know best to enslave fashion and our mode of dress. It is in my opinion our most personal method of expressing our own freedom of expression, or our lack of it.

I repeat, that this is not about protection of children but about control not just of them but of society as a whole by moulding children into the adults those who would shut us up in a box, mindless and docile, subject to the whims of our lords and masters and doing as we are told desire us to be.

[ChicagoNormalGuy]

Of course parents often influence or at least try to influence that expression, but as a child grows up it increasingly wants to be its own person. It increasingly chooses what it wants to wear for good or ill, and resents being told what its parents insist it should wear. As their sexuality burgeons, the suppression of its free expression creates resentment and even violence in the home, or children run away because of the overt pressures and restrictions placed on them by overbearing parents.

Show some facts here. Show us the study that states pre-pubescent children resent their parents for choosing clothing for the children that doesn't let them display their burgeoning sexuality. Show us the numbers of violent incidents in the home over the free expression of sexuality. Show us specific examples of children who have run away from home ONLY because her/his parents placed restrictions on their sexual expression.


It is that some in society feel they must dictate to children and parents what they can and cannot do in areas where it has no business. We are talking about an area of free expression.

You've created this whole, vague group of people, the ubiquitous "THEY" that starts off so many discussions. "They say..." "They want to take away..." "They dictate..." But what you are failing to realize is that, in this particular case, "They" are the parents of children. They are real people who take the responsibility for raising their children seriously. They know their own children best and are charged with making the best decisions for those children that they can, based on their own life experiences, until those children are mature enough to make their own decisions.

So, actually, parents do have the right, indeed, the responsibility to speak up when they find something that they believe will harm their children in some way. Just because you disagree with them, doesn't make them wrong or bad or evil.

[sammie19]

Show some facts here. Show us the study that states pre-pubescent children resent their parents for choosing clothing for the children that doesn't let them display their burgeoning sexuality. Show us the numbers of violent incidents in the home over the free expression of sexuality. Show us specific examples of children who have run away from home ONLY because her/his parents placed restrictions on their sexual expression.



You've created this whole, vague group of people, the ubiquitous "THEY" that starts off so many discussions. "They say..." "They want to take away..." "They dictate..." But what you are failing to realize is that, in this particular case, "They" are the parents of children. They are real people who take the responsibility for raising their children seriously. They know their own children best and are charged with making the best decisions for those children that they can, based on their own life experiences, until those children are mature enough to make their own decisions.

So, actually, parents do have the right, indeed, the responsibility to speak up when they find something that they believe will harm their children in some way. Just because you disagree with them, doesn't make them wrong or bad or evil.

I didnt create the group of people who wrote the report which may change so much of how children are dressed. I do not want to dictate to anyone how they or their children are dressed. I have already said that parents and children themselves should be allowed to find their own way without interference from outside. Each family will find its own way and sometimes it will be good and sometimes not so good, but isn't that like so many areas of our lives?

I was a prepubescent child and all of us were. I and many of my friends often created merry hell being made to dress in ways we didnt like even if in my own case my own parents were extremely liberal and for me this was a rare event. No doubt u were the same if u care to cast your mind back.

My high school proposed forcing girls into wearing trousers rather than skirts for so called reasons of "protection". An entire year of prepubescent girls raised merry hell along with the rest of the schools older girls and most parents. Choice was the issue and choice won the day. Thats what I base my argument on and need no study to tell me how I and other kids felt at being made to wear things we neither wanted nor liked.

[tenni]

"In our law a child is a child until the age of 18 but children may have sex and even marry from the age of 16.

Children are children, but they are not just children. They are complex human beings in their own right and we interfere with their free expression at our peril."

Sammie
In my country, people under the age of 18 (19 in some cases) are considered minors rather than children. This is to recognize the area of moving from being clearly a child (usually under 10) and an adult. I agree that children are a form of sexual beings from a very young age. They are not however sexual in practice or awareness. It is a slow developmental process from birth to adulthood on many aspects of the individual and that includes their cognitive development as well as physical and sexual development etc.

I have heard complaints from parents (often mothers) who state that there is a lack of appropriate clothing for their children (mostly girls). Although most of us do not perceive a three year old girl with her belly showing as sexual, these parents complain that there is a lack of "feminine" girl clothing that is not promoting sexual attaction. Just what that is I'm not sure but suspect that it is things like "girly" dresses that are cute rather than seductive. Frills and things on clothing for infants, preschoolers, pre pubescents and pubescent children. If all that is available for a parent to purchase has a sexual seductive quality to it, what is a parent to do? Make all the clothing for their children? Then there would be peer pressure as well as media pressure.

The question of appropriate clothing in a school situation has been frequently approached as dressing for work as in an office. If it is not appropriate for an adult woman to wear see through blouses with the midriff exposed then it certainly is inappropriate for a five or six year old or even a fourteen year old to wear to school. However, a one or two year old wearing a diaper and a mini skirt with leggings as appropriate . Children that age are not sexually aware of exposing their body parts (often but not always) and covering up and a child rolling around jumping etc. should be ok. I saw the sweetest little girl about two or three years old last week. She was wearing a rather short dress with leggings and a pretty child like hat. The dress was a pleasant colour of pink with frills along the bottom. It was short and this permitted her to walk(remember mobility is still kinda new to two year olds). It wasn't sexual and I think that the parents selected "cute" not sexual clothing for the child.

[sammie19]

"In our law a child is a child until the age of 18 but children may have sex and even marry from the age of 16.

Children are children, but they are not just children. They are complex human beings in their own right and we interfere with their free expression at our peril."

Sammie
In my country, people under the age of 18 (19 in some cases) are considered minors rather than children. This is to recognize the area of moving from being clearly a child (usually under 10) and an adult. I agree that children are a form of sexual beings from a very young age. They are not however sexual in practice or awareness. It is a slow developmental process from birth to adulthood on many aspects of the individual and that includes their cognitive development as well as physical and sexual development etc.

I have heard complaints from parents (often mothers) who state that there is a lack of appropriate clothing for their children (mostly girls). Although most of us do not perceive a three year old girl with her belly showing as sexual, these parents complain that there is a lack of "feminine" girl clothing that is not promoting sexual attaction. Just what that is I'm not sure but suspect that it is things like "girly" dresses that are cute rather than seductive. Frills and things on clothing for infants, preschoolers, pre pubescents and pubescent children. If all that is available for a parent to purchase has a sexual seductive quality to it, what is a parent to do? Make all the clothing for their children? Then there would be peer pressure as well as media pressure.

The question of appropriate clothing in a school situation has been frequently approached as dressing for work as in an office. If it is not appropriate for an adult woman to wear see through blouses with the midriff exposed then it certainly is inappropriate for a five or six year old or even a fourteen year old to wear to school. However, a one or two year old wearing a diaper and a mini skirt with leggings as appropriate . Children that age are not sexually aware of exposing their body parts (often but not always) and covering up and a child rolling around jumping etc. should be ok. I saw the sweetest little girl about two or three years old last week. She was wearing a rather short dress with leggings and a pretty child like hat. The dress was a pleasant colour of pink with frills along the bottom. It was short and this permitted her to walk(remember mobility is still kinda new to two year olds). It wasn't sexual and I think that the parents selected "cute" not sexual clothing for the child.

Tenni, thx for what I consider a thoughtful reply. It is likely we wouldn't agree completey on this but u understand some of what I am trying to say.

Kids from a very young age are not aware of their sexuality but it is there nonetheless. It is a slow process but my argument is that we do them and ourselves a disservice by stifling that process and restricting them that development. From that early age we begin to either allow or restrict the development of free expression which fashion allows. Not free expression of sexuality which one poster thinks I have said, but one the most personal and and I think liberating free expressions we can have. That of how we show ourselves to the world.

I too have heard some mothers complain about lack of suitable clothing for their children although more from older mothers and grandparents because younger mothers tend to be much more open minded and prepared to allow their kids, girls particularly to look modern dress in a much more liberated and liberating fashion from a very young age. It is a complaint I don't accept because in our shops and stores there is a huge wealth of differing styles to select from some which is scaled down versions of an adult model to what is obviously a child's garment in style and intent. I don't want this to change nor do I wish to impose upon any what they feel is best for their child.

In respect of a school situation whatever is imposed, from a uniform code to restrictions on skirt lengths, girls particularly will always push back the boundaries of what is expected. I've not only seen it but done it and my mother was a teacher at my high school but as my mother she was as supportive as she could be because she isnt an old fashioned narrow minded harridan, but as a teacher not always very nice about it.

[elian]

So are you debating the issue of school uniforms vs. personal choice? Usually here in the US conservative religious grade schools use uniforms, most public schools allow students to wear their own clothing within certain boundaries. The primary concern is whether or not the "style" of the student actually disrupts the learning process or not.

Recently here in the US two controversial things kids are asking to wear in school seem to be a rubber braclet that says "I :heart: boobies" (supposedly to promote breast cancer awareness) and 2 T-Shirts by "Old Navy" stores that promote LGBT pride.

As so many other folks have said, children are growing, learning and trying to define themselves through all of those years so it is natural for them to try to push the boundaries of what people think is socially acceptable.

The weird thing is some teens try like heck to fit in, they don't WANT to be different because children can be very keen to exploit any differences through bullying, etc.

When I was growing up we were too POOR to afford anything "stylish"..of course I never quite fit in anyway..I thought I was pretty straight acting but two boys ended up just outright kissing me anyway for no reason as far as I could tell - that was confusing when I was trying hard not to "be" gay. The good news is that eventually grade/high school does end and then you get to the real world.

Children are already exposed to so much sexual trash through marketing, children want to rebel and marketers know that it's a lot easier to let the children pry the money from their parent's wallet than to try and do it themselves. I hope that in this day and age chldren still get a chance just to be kids and not worry about sex.

[sammie19]

So are you debating the issue of school uniforms vs. personal choice? Usually here in the US conservative religious grade schools use uniforms, most public schools allow students to wear their own clothing within certain boundaries. The primary concern is whether or not the "style" of the student actually disrupts the learning process or not.

Recently here in the US two controversial things kids are asking to wear in school seem to be a rubber braclet that says "I :heart: boobies" (supposedly to promote breast cancer awareness) and 2 T-Shirts by "Old Navy" stores that promote LGBT pride.

As so many other folks have said, children are growing, learning and trying to define themselves through all of those years so it is natural for them to try to push the boundaries of what people think is socially acceptable.

The weird thing is some teens try like heck to fit in, they don't WANT to be different because children can be very keen to exploit any differences through bullying, etc.

When I was growing up we were too POOR to afford anything "stylish"..of course I never quite fit in anyway..but the good news is that eventually grade/high school does end and then you get to the real world.

Children are already exposed to so much sexual trash through marketing, children want to rebel and marketers know that it's a lot easier to let the children pry the money from their parent's wallet than to try and do it themselves. I hope that in this day and age chldren still get a chance just to be kids.

I dont demur from the point you make about school uniforms. One of the reasons so many state schools have moved from jacket, tie, shirt,etc to sweat shirt and trousers or skirt is because the the expense issue. The parents of poorer children could not afford the more formal and much more expensive attire, and it was quite a simple matter to determine poor from better off by the more threadbare clothes of the poor.

I had 2 blazers when I first went to high school, and a number of ties, shirts and skirts. It was much easier to look smart with a wealth of uniform than for those whose parents could only afford one. Whether uniformed or ununiformed the poor from the better off can always be spotted at a glance the more so as the school year drags on.

My mother as a teacher dislikes school uniforms for one reason. It is more difficult to catch a culprit when 30 kids are dressed similarly then when 30 all wear their own style. She doesnt accept that uniformed children are any better behaved than those who are dressed in their own more individual gear.

Every so often at school there was a day when we could wear our own every day clothes and the odd thing is that truancy rates were down on those days, and we tended to be less disruptive even although we were allowed far more free expression than on days we wore uniforms even algthough we paid (to charity) for the privilege. One day three or four times a year proves nothing but it is an interesting observation. It also proved my mum's point.

Children have always copied their parents and adults. Fairy dresses and looking like a princess, nurses uniforms and soldier suits, space gear and so on have been the stuff of childs play for decades. That never prevented them having a childhood, and neither does wearing what people call "sexualised" clothing. It is what kids do, what they want. Not all but many, and it is important to them.

Im not quite sure what the objection is to "sexualised" clothing when we allow soldier suits, toy guns swords and kids to play at slaughtering each other. Some object to the latter because it can encourage aggression in children. It is children'splay, we shouldn't ban children's play. I have had this argument time and again with one person in particular who would ban toy guns and knives and stop kids playing soldiers.

Whether uniforms for play or clothing which mimics adult "sexualised" style for everyday use isnt important. What is important is allowing children as far as we can to be free in expressing themselves and playing happily with their friends. By depriving them of that free expression, we do not encourage them to have a childhood, contrarily we deprive them of much of it.

[tenni]

I am inclined to think that "sexualized" clothing works hand in hand with other aspects in society that are not particularly aimed at children. The reports that young children age five or six will mimic video dancers by shaking their butts and thrusting their hips forwards and backwards as in music videos are significant in sexualzing children before they even realize that they are mimicking intercourse. To them, it may be "playing" at being an adult dancer or some such modelling role play. When you also have the majority of clothing available as mid riff exposed, short skirts and padded "training bras" the child is projecting an image that they probably don't intend or may not understand. Even those who understand may think that they are "acting" grown up as opposed to mimicking sexual movements. They are "playing" without understanding what they are playing. That is different in my opinion from permitting children to play as children with freedom of expression. The child begins to assume that certain things are to be mimicked or model themselves after. On the other hand, the boy playing with an imaginary gun doesn't realize that the sounds that he mimics with a real gun ends in death of killing another person. The girl dressed as mentioned and thrusting doesn't understand that she is being sexual. We are so accustomed to seeing these dancers thrust in videos that it means very little to adults as well though. We are overexposed to the adults in sexy skimpy clothes thrusting away. A child doing the same thing? Maybe, it has no meaning as well today?

[sammie19]

I am inclined to think that "sexualized" clothing works hand in hand with other aspects in society that are not particularly aimed at children. The reports that young children age five or six will mimic video dancers by shaking their butts and thrusting their hips forwards and backwards as in music videos are significant in sexualzing children before they even realize that they are mimicking intercourse. To them, it may be "playing" at being an adult dancer or some such modelling role play. When you also have the majority of clothing available as mid riff exposed, short skirts and padded "training bras" the child is projecting an image that they probably don't intend or may not understand. Even those who understand may think that they are "acting" grown up as opposed to mimicking sexual movements. They are "playing" without understanding what they are playing. That is different in my opinion from permitting children to play as children with freedom of expression. The child begins to assume that certain things are to be mimicked or model themselves after. On the other hand, the boy playing with an imaginary gun doesn't realize that the sounds that he mimics with a real gun ends in death of killing another person. The girl dressed as mentioned and thrusting doesn't understand that she is being sexual. We are so accustomed to seeing these dancers thrust in videos that it means very little to adults as well though. We are overexposed to the adults in sexy skimpy clothes thrusting away. A child doing the same thing? Maybe, it has no meaning as well today?

Is modern dance mimicking intercourse? That it can be intensely sexual is true but Im not sure about that claim.

It doesnt matter whether it is or not in fact. The very fact that a child doesnt understand it plays to his or her free expression becaue it is whatever he or she wants it to be and means whatever he or she wants it to mean. By restricting it at a very young age as some parents do, means making it dirty, and it creates inhibitions in a young mind which last for a lifetime.

Regarding war play I have more sympathy with critics of that yet children are people and play is preparation for adult life. By controlling such play or inhibiting it we can create pent up frustrations which can come out as something much more sinister and nasty. better to allow a child's fantasy than restrict or ban it and make it even more attractive to a child and warp that free expression by making what is a very dark reality even darker and more warped than it already is.

Are we overexposed to sexual images of adults in skimpy clothes or worse? It is the hysteria which often accompanies such images which creates the mystique of naughtiness and sense of dark adventure and doing something which is forbidden which excites us. It isn't the availability of such images which sexualises them but the fuddy duddy reaction to them by so many "reasonable adults" and restriction placed upon them.

If adults are enticed by something they do understand it isn't urprising that children in their play use free expression to copy those adults whether or not they fully understand what they are doing. What may be to adults intensely sexual to a child is fun, colourful and enables them to experience the joy of dance for instance.

Why not a paddded bra for a child? I used to stuff socks inside my clothes to mimic tits. Breasts are not dirty nor are they something anyone should be ashamed of. Unlike many even most people I don't tut when I see a 6 or 7 year old who has an obviously false very slightly unnatural 6 or 7 year old chest. I may not like or think a bra is needed for a child of that age, but why not? It is fantasy to that child, and play. Trying to be like mummy or aunty Jo. It may be sexualising but not to the child. It is the adult who sexualises such an image and tries to make it dirty.

To make things dirty we inhibit the child. We dont protect them or prepare them for adult life. We give them psychological issues which can be detrimental for a lifetime. We stifle their ability to express themselves freely and do the spark of innovation within the child severe harm.