Oh. I guess you missed my sarcasm. I thought it was glaring. :candle:

I picked up a little of it.

But even in the sarcasm, it would have to ring true...you know what I'm saying? Because it would *have* to be called a 'chef's set'. I mean, being that we have little kitchen sets already...which are naturally for girls.

And a sewing machine would have to be called a 'tailor's set'.

Gah....I'm so off topic, and I apologize for the derail.

Personally, I want to see some boys playing with my little ponies and doing their fucking hair, and gluing star stickers to their ponies' asses.

Again, I apologize for the derail...children's toys (and children's toy commercials) PISS me OFF.


Especially When The Parents Turn Around A Say Something Really Stupid Like, "MY Kid Doesn't Buy Into That Gendered Stuff (as the kid sits there and plays with their pink or blue toy),
Dylan

Yeah, and where ARE little boys dressed in bathing suits and evening wear competitions with faces full of make up?

I agree with you in the fact that it doesn't create pedifiles..But...I do believe it fuels them .

I as well was assaulted as a child and I believe the more things out there to fule these personalities...The more it is brought to front and acted upon.

In my opinion only.

I also realize that bringing it to front to fight it...may have a duel result at first...But in the end if things work out right...It may slow the result of abuse even a lil.

I have to agree with all points made

These parents to me scream of...

I want to make a buck off my kid and be the popular mom cuz my kid is better than yours kinda parent...

I don't understand why breast feeding is seen as 'inappropriate'.

I mean, I agree with Juliesafemme. It's not a sexual thing...yet it is constantly sexualized...even to the point of being considered 'illegal' in some places.

So, why is it ok to have a doll that one gives a bottle to, yet breast feeding is seen as 'wrong'?

I don't get it.


Being Serious,
Dylan

I think this has to do with the sexualization of women, period. If my only, or primary, value is sexual than anything I'm doing with my breasts must be sexual too.

I breastfed my son until he was 17 months old...and I couldn't even begin to tell you how much crap I put up with about it. I was always modest about it...that's just who I am...and my son was one of those babies who was fine to have a blanket or scarf covering completely while he nursed. I was told on more than one occasion that I should go nurse him in the bathroom...instead of the relatively private quiet spots I would find at the mall, in a restaurant or wherever I was. My reaction was always the same...."really? do you eat your lunch in the bathroom? I don't."

Women's bodies aren't always sexual...but in this culture that's still their primary value. Barf.

Sure driving a car and feeding an infant are adult behaviours, and that is why toy companies have developed products that let the child imaginatively participate in them.

A child can drive a pretend car and that is fine--the child wants to emulate the act of driving, so the parents buy a toy car/big wheels (whatever) for the child to scoot around in.

I'm with Dylan and Julie--why is a toy bottle a more appropriate device for the imaginary feeding of a baby?

I don't see this type of doll as contributing to the sexualization of children.

i don't think breast feeding is sexual AT all.
In fact, I think we got around to that by route of ways girl children are taught to be good girls and housewives.
All the toys emulating that geared towards little girls IS sexist and misogynistic when coupled with the fact that not a lot of toys are geared towards girls being masculine and boys being feminine. I use feminine and masculine only in the strictest binary sense as perpetuated by MSM.
(so please don't give me a lesson on what is and isn't feminine or masculine, because trust me...i know).

I have watched my daughter be asked to leave a restaurant due to the fact she was breastfeeding in a corner booth, covered up. Needless to say, Mom was there and we not only stayed, we ate for free. Grrr.

I actually have much less of a problem with the breast-feeding part than the "shove a young girl into a role as a Mother" part. I wouldnt mind it so much if there were dolls and such to encourage young boys to fantasize about what a good Father they would be.

But I do get that breastfeeding is sexualized. I will admit to being a little squicked by the flower petals on the vest that would cover the part where the breasts should be :|

Yeah, I agree..shoving girls into mothering, cleaning, cooking, secretarial, shopaholic, hair dresser, hooker, stripper, sexualized, etc roles grosses me out and pisses me off sooooooooo bad.

And I have to admit that I had a bit of a problem when you mentioned the breast feeding vest (and I'm trying to figure out why, because I know know know it's not a sexual thing...I'm still trying to figure out *why* my initial reaction is what it is...I mean, I don't know if I would buy my kid a breast feeding vest, and I don't know why or why not...maybe because it IS so sexualized. I just don't know...still trying to figure out what triggered the initial 'ew' reaction when I know logically it's not a sexual thing)

And yanno, even if you're the coolest, most enlightened parent in the world...your kids are still going to gravitate towards gendered toys, because their peers are playing with gendered toys, and no kid wants to be left out


Dylan

I promise this is relevant.
 

I think what squicks *me* is not the fact that there is a breast feeding doll.
I think it is the fact that little girls don't have breasts yet, and everywhere they look there are breast-centric messages being thrown their way.
I just want them to relish the years they have being KIDS, and it feels like they are pushed to be older almost right out of the womb.

The really weird thing about people grossing out over breast feeding IS the fact that breasts are basically the passport to the universe according the the MSM. It is the norm for women to get implants and big boobies are everywhere. Strange to be so puritanical about the thing that actually de-sexualizes breasts.

I have accidentally found this show too. I disturbed me to say the least. I couldn't believe that the girl's parent actually support and encourage their daughters to compete in these competitions.

Now, whereas I dont agree, that, this type of media makes a pedephile, I DO strongly agree that the objectification of our daughters and our sons has got to stop.

As a mother of a seven-year old girl, and raising two boys (my ex-wife's children) I am alarmed at the clothing I see being sold in the stores.
My first example: Wal-mart. Have you noticed the clothes they have for little girls, and for that matter some of the boys clothes, too?
My second example: K-mart. My, but, they are just as bad.

Now, raising 3 children, without support from the other "parents", I am left with not as much money as I would like. Even worse are times when I would love to be able to get clothing at a decent price. I will be damned, however, before I will go to some of these estblishments to purchace them. Some of these stores seem hell-bent that I buy a pair of shorts that barely cover MY children decently. Since when do my sons need jeans that show...ahem...ANYTHING? As far as that goes, why does my 7 year old daughter need a top with a plunging neck-line?


These are just my opinions. I'm glad someone had the brains to point this out to others who seem to think this way of dressing CHILDREN is "ok".
As a loving, concerned parent, I don't find one thing "ok" with it.

Graphic Content
 

I and this is Snow coming from Snow space..

I think that these disturbing images do feed the sick fuckhead pedophiles out there. I mean come on, look at the adds parading our children like meat for anyone to look at, release themselves to etc.

If you really can't see that I have to say I am shocked anyone does not.. I am blessed that my soon to be 10 year old still has some innocence left, and that his little mind is still about playing in the park, bowling and not other disturbing things.

We allow the media to pimp out our kids and stay silent. Pisses me off. Our kids don't have a network such as Animal Planet.

I think we should.. I really do, our kids are not advocated ENOUGH.

That is all I have to say about that for now.

Sexualized children and pedophilia are so NOT two separate and distinct issues.

Not if you are Jon Benet Ramsey. Not if you are the mother letting your child dress like what she see's in the MMS and sending her out to the playground never to be seen again.

Not if you are the registered sex offender who cannot download kiddie porn but have access to Toddlers in Tiara's and a bottle of lotion.

Funny you mention buying stuff at Lands End, while the people who cannot afford that are stuck shopping at K-mart and Wal-Mart with a vast array of inappropriate clothing but limited stuff any of want to dress our girls in. I wonder if that ties into the fact that a lot of girls disappear from homes of underprivileged parents? If that somehow makes them more susceptible?

Because while sexualizing children doesn't CAUSE pedophilia, it is certainly not a deterrent is it?

Um what does queer have to do with the hyper sexualization of our children?

I will be honest none of the queer parents I know, dress their kids provocatively, and I am not saying there aren't queers that do. You don't think that some young kid who has these thoughts about kids isn't going to use these add as a stepping stone to worse images?

really?

I know they are born this way but when they have nothing to get a hold of, magazines, catalogs and a walk in the park become their erotic images. I know for me, nothing could make me accept any of the add put up in this
thread.

It's disgusting and gross that our children are pimped out for the sake of Brand Name clothing...

If I was filthy rich I wouldn't do that to my kids I made sure when with me my kids were kids, not tiny Guess ads.

Um I have 2 daughters...

I did NOT buy them any booty shorts and lemme tell you one of them wanted them bad cause everyone else had them. Know how hard it is not to find booty shorts??

So who else is to blame when 12 year old Nancy is in daisy dukes?

Parents!!!

They have the money, not Nancy

Just sayin'

There is no reason an 8 year old girl needs to be wearing thong underwear, or daisy dukes and a tube top. No reason.

I am simply trying to make the point that queers are blamed and labeled as pedophiles by straight culture. I was making no comments about queer parents at all.

This is too personal an issue for me and I am not communicating clearly. I apologize for that. I still maintain that pedophiles do not need sexual images of children to promote their behavior. That does not mean in any way that I agree with or condone of the sexualization of children in media or in any other way. I just want children to stop being hurt.

My disgusting uncle used the Sears catalog to wack his shit to. Girls section.

Just sayin'

Good for her. One day her daughter will get it. I hope.

It seems that often times parents are so busy being their child's "Peer" that they give in to anything the kid wants. I am particularly bothered by teens whose Mommas dress like them and share all their personal info (like what happened on Mommas date, her sex life, etc.) with their kids. The lines get blurred and I stand to the side fascinated.

I have mixed feelings about that movie. Well, maybe not -mixed- feelings, but...here's the deal.

I like that movie. A lot. It's easily one of my favourites of all time. (Although I have to fast forward through the "selling her virginity" scene). I get why that movie squicks people out, I do. But I also think that movie is -very- different from the sexualisation of children via pageants and commercials and letting your kid wear knee-high platform boots.

Pageants, adverts, too grown-up clothing for children are all framed in a "this is okay, this is normal, this is acceptable" light. Pretty Baby, on the other hand, I think it's pretty clear that the people involved in making that movie made it from the perspective of "this shit happened and this shit is bad and had far-reaching impact on the people that this shit happened to". I don't feel like that movie in any way tried to frame the sexualisation of the character that Brooke Shields played as anything positive.

Now, what does concern me is how the adults in Brooke's life at the time framed things for her, or if they bothered to talk to her about it at all. I really have no idea. But I do hope that she had several sit-downs with an adult who explained to her that the things her character did or see are awful things for a little girl to do or see. I hope the grownups in her life checked in with her frequently to see how she was doing.

But I do think that vilifying a movie that depicts childhood prostitution and equating it with being pro-sexualisation-of-children is akin to insisting that a movie in which a rape or murder occurs is pro-rape or pro-murder. It's just not the same thing.

I think you took Julie's post out of context. She was merely (re)stating the obvious stereotype that queers are pedophiles.

Hell, my own aunt wouldn't let me take my female cousin to the zoo with her brothers, because of this vile stereotype...while she said it had nothing to do with me 'personally'.



I'm Just Sayin'...I Think You Took That Part Out Of Context,
Dylan

This thing is that there is not really statistical data to back up the Queers are Pedophiles thing.

I don't think the same can be said about sexualized children becoming victims of sexual abuse.

It's a red herring.

I am ok with my post

I don't disagree with you at all. Has the xtian right EVER need actual statistical data?

I didn't read Julie as disagreeing with anything you're saying here (or anything Snow said).

I have to agree with Julie that pedophiles would exist whether or not children are sexualized (which is what I read her as saying)

And I agree, it's a red herring...so I don't understand why anyone's making a big deal about the (obvious) queers/pedophiles comment.


Dylan

I don't see where a BIG DEAL was made....

but ok...

I still think the images are a stepping stone to these fuckers getting off when they can't find someone or an image on the internets.

*shrugs*

do you think it is my head injury or the cancer that makes me agree AND disagree with everyone lately? i feel so bi-polar.

As a parent of a daughter, I also found it very difficult to find clothes for her to wear. My rule was the shorts had to be no shorter than 2 inches above the knee, shorts under skirts, and when raising her arms, her belly wasnt allowed to show. This was often done by buying clothes that were a size or two bigger. She wasnt allowed to wear those tiny high heels for kids, (except her princess pair she got and only around the house) I went balistic when she would go to friends houses and put make up on at age 6. When she went to live with her dad for awhile at age 10, his gf taught her how to shave her legs, and when I got pissed off, and asked why he would let her do that, he said.."because it's cute!" Jeez. Then her aunt took her to pierce her ears at age 11. I didnt appreciate that either.

Recently I saw an article about the Bratz company selling padded training bras at walmart.
Gross.

I don't disagree with you at all.

But didn't you also say your family member used the Sears catalog?

Pedophiles aren't going to stop being pedophiles just because we take little kids outta skimpy clothes.

And I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about the sexualization of (predominantly female) children. I think it's completely gross.


I Really Don't Think Anyone Disagrees With What You're Saying,
Dylan

That I did...

When he wasn't chasing me around the fucking house.

Here's an article on this

http://www.feministing.com/archives/005685.html

http://hindumommy.files.wordpress.co.../09/64_1_b.jpg

Yeah my girls....

No way would they ever get these, nor my future grand kids...


http://community.feministing.com/200...irls-bras.html

You are correct in the fact it won't stop the twisted sick people from being just that...
But

It will stop exposer to entice them everytime they turn around.
It will atleast slow the reactions because it isn't being promoted everyday
It will also perhaps save one or more children or youth from having to endure a lifetime of hell.

It is true that they may find resources elsewhere
But to take it out of the lime light will definately slow it down at the very least.

They have tests they run on offenders now which prove that magazines,pictures of children in risky clothes, etc
Excite them.
They are using this more and more to determine the type of petifile these people are once the are caught.

Those tests all by themselves prove that when shown a pic...The body reacts...And in a sick mind..They react in a sick fashion.

In my opinion