Girls Pushing for Modest Fashion Options

[Capella]

Ok like the title says apparently there is a revolt starting against Britney Spears type clothing. I would be interested in hearing any comments from those curently dealing with it, sensory overload? sexy librarian? Comments.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=2&u=/ap/20040602/ap_on_re_us/modest_clothing

I'm wondering if we are seeing the start of a puritian dressing movement, *shudder*.

Oh and as a last sentance I can refer to as things go down the hole here:

Try to keep this thread on topic, yes it's very easy to make wise cracks and we all know you can do it, so lets just agree you can and stop right there.

carrier

[SquidDNA]

I thought the girl's spelling was atrocious, and the sexy librarian quote was kinda stupid, but as a potential parent I'm somewhat encouraged to see that there's a good chance kids wont' necessarily be walking around in thongs by the time I have a few.

[A176]

I would have to agree with Squid in some points that the younger ones may be taking it too far. Preteens in thongs? Yikes!

...but, I'm against the whole overall deprevation of female sexuality. No, not for my own personal gain, but if they want to look (and/or) feel sexy, why should we stop them?

[Mac_Bug]

dude those puritans with those thick clothing and the tight waistline and huge bust sizes are hot, makes you wanna strip them ;)

[ÜberJumper]

My wife had my daughter dressed up in a dress with a little half top yesterday. She kept going "Look at how cute her stomach is sticking out!"

I was like "Great, start her early. No boyfriends until you're 80!"

[Vidar]

Good for girls, bad for pedophiles. I say huzzah.

[Vaarok]

Firstly, young childrens should not be flaunting what they haven't even grown yet. But in regard to the slightly older agegroup:

Sex appeal is based not upon what you see, but what you don't see. Therefore, I believe it's a good thing not to have a chick nearly naked to begin with.

You never see a girl in a dress anymore, it seems. Rather than having a girl in sprayed-on hiphuggers that don't flatter, a dress that shows some ankle offers intrigue, but isn't an overt fashion failure reminiscent of a denim sausage.

[Capella]

Thanks Mac for making the thread last just 3 posts before going down a hole. In fact we are discussing girls of 11+ years of age, so I have to wonder where your head is at.

I think parents have little control over what direction their kids go in to be cool. Even to the point of stashing clothing at a freinds house to change into after leaving home. There has to be a more systemic movement to make peers want to wear verses being forced to wear reasonable clothing. And yeah leaving things thing to the imagination is a good idea.

carrier

[ÜberJumper]

Carrier:

What are you talking about? Mac_bug's post pretty well sums it up nicely. Besides, note the sarcastic smiley.

[SquidDNA]

I'd like to think that I could work with my daughter and come to some kind of compromise. Of course, zero experience with offspring.

[Pherdnut]

I dunno Uber. Thick wool makes people sweaty. I find nothing sexier than a good looking woman in the Norwegian national costume (my folks are immigrants), but they tell me it's like a sweat tent under there.

[Ammon Ra]

wool = best insulation material. Will keep anyone warm even if it's negative degrees outside :p

As for the topic, Excessivness in any direction is bad, be it wool-hugging puritans, or thong-hugging, erm...well, women. :)

[FallenSoloSLS]

.... . . but if they want to look (and/or) feel sexy, why should we stop them?

Because my 16 year old daughter should not be trying to "feel sexy". In most situations, teenagers have no business trying to look, "sexy". Our young daughters are having a hard enough time trying to work through their puberty and their burgeoning sexuality without throwing the pressures of putting their bodies on display for observation and critiquing by the public.

Hell, we have a hard enough time keeping our girls on track with regard to their education - especially math and science.

Besides, much of the clothing and fasions being pushed on our children is overtly sexual and slutty, not sexy.

It's like the difference between Fredericks and Victoria's Secret.

[SquidDNA]

I'm told that stuff from Frederick's at least holds up to a few washing cycles.

But seriously, A176 was talking about general female sexuality, in contrast to the rest of his post, women. I think he agrees with you that there are ages where it's inappropriate, as do I.

[ÜberJumper]

Pherdnut:

You're missing the whole sarcastic bit.

[FallenSoloSLS]

I'm told that stuff from Frederick's at least holds up to a few washing cycles.

But seriously, A176 was talking about general female sexuality, in contrast to the rest of his post, women. I think he agrees with you that there are ages where it's inappropriate, as do I.

Maybe I misread A176's post. My bad.

Basically, I don't think high school age girls need to be dressing in overtly sexual fasions. They're students, not strippers.

[A176]

Fallen, yea, I meant the more older age groups. Also, good luck with trying to tell most teens "you're just students!". :p

Unfortunately though, teenage minds are quite the trickle. Its true that some dress the way they do because they really do want to have sex. Some dress the way they do because that's the norm for them. Hip huggers or not, they all have their differences.

I would whole heartedly agree that parents should monitor what their younger ones wear, but as they grow older it comes to a point where you just can't/shouldn't do anything about it anymore. You keep bitching at them, it'll just make them more mad, confused, sad, etc.

It eventually lands in the hand of the media. Music stars are the #1 influence in teen's minds when it comes to clothing, just because of the varied nature of the genres. If you have a problem with it, thats where you should start addressing it, imo.

[Mr Tyranny]

True.. True.. Which brings up the real issue with young girls wearing sexy clothing.. The Marketers.. I have a lot of friends with teenage daughters that like to dress in the current fashion and for the most part they are just normal girls who watch shows like Lizzy Mawhatever on Disney and like to emulate the look.. Their not looking to get laid they just see it on the shows and think boys will pay more attention to them if they look sexy.. And guess what.. It works.. And judging by the numbers the fashion industry pulls in on teenagers alone it works really really well.. The problems arise when the marketers throw sex into the equation and prey on kids who are in the clutches of their hormones who then in turn prey on their parents who vainly attempt to clutch their dwindling wallet.. I will give some grudging props to Disney as they do seem to keep sex out of any of their kid shows.. It's true the girls are dressed like hookers but at least they act like nice girls and not tramps..

[Pherdnut]

I think it's more 17 and Cosmo than the pop stars.

[Langy]

Question: What's the problem with young girls dressing however they want, even if it is 'sexy' (or slutty, etc.)? I don't, personally, see any problem at all with allowing people to dress how they like - just because they dress a certain way, doesn't mean they act a certain way. And if they do act a certain way, changing they way they dress isn't going to do anything about it. What, are you trying to protect them from people who are going to rape them or something? Nothing else makes any sense...

[Hablacraja]

Perhaps even the clothes manufacturers themselves play a larger role. I remember that last year either Abercrombie and Fitch or Aeropostale or one of the other companies recieved a ton of complaints because its catalogues and advertisements, directed at teens and pre-teens, had such sexual themes.

In an environment where I have to deal with it almost daily ("deal with it" -- as if I don't like it) I can assure that unless there is some change, the US will continue to be a place where my best recent off-the-cuff pickup line was to indicate her Veronica's Secret thong and tell her, "That looks pretty expensive." Which, by the way, did not result in a brutal slap, but also did not achieve the desired results. Take your chances.

About the shift to more conservative "hot librarian" styles...I can't say I'm entirely dissapointed. Less jailbait ending in a catch for the sex offender list in exchange for a little less skin for those of us going about it the hard way seems a decent trade-off.

[[bulletproof]]

i would much rather see a Wear-Less-Damn-Makeup Revolution.

[Langy]

Personally, I find the whole 'hot librarian' style to be extremely sexy and like a shift in that direction, but I don't see any real point in people telling their kids how to dress. I just don't know what the problem is with people dressed up with tiny tops and ultra-miniskirts and all of that.

Then again, I also don't understand what's so wrong with nudity, so maybe I'm just odd *shrug*

[Chimera]

Langy imagine what you would be thinking if an attractive person of the opposite gender came into your school or work place in the nude, do you think that you could keep your mind focused on your job or school work?

I agree with Langy though and bulletproof about the makeup

[Langy]

Chimera - If nudity was common, yes. I definitely could keep my mind on work. Because it wouldn't be anything different from seeing an attractive woman, period. And I can keep my mind focused on work very well even when daunted by attracted* women. Unless it's boring work, in which case my gaze would turn towards that woman.

EDIT:

*I meant attractive women.

[Starfisher]

Chimera - that would only be a distraction because you never see nude people, and when you do, it is almost always directly tied to sex. If people grew up without nude = sex, it wouldn't be a big deal. Granted, humans are visual creatures, but the fact that nudists can go about their lives without spontaneously having sex every five seconds proves that we can control it if we so desire.

[hayabusa01]

If you ask me, I'd say it's for the better. Now the moment they start getting Nazi'ish, then it's a bad thing.

Personally, I prefer the more classier looking girls. Sure the slutty ones catch my eye too, but I'd only consider nailing them; not a relationship with them. Still, I tend to check out the more conservatively, and elegantly dressed girls.

And I completely agree about the need for less makeup!

[Chimera]

Nudity isn't common though, it hasn't been common for centuries at least so in the here and now nudity would be distracting to some people, but yeah if we were accustomed to nudity then it wouldn't be distracting, least not all the time.

[ShivaArchon]

Hopefully a shift to classier dressing applies to all young people and not just the early high school crowd. The slut look usually brings a sneer to my face, I'd much rather girls tried to look sexy and dignified as opposed to almost naked.

"If you can see more cleavage than a plumber's ass, do not get involved."

[Homdax]

Well, I'm there rite at the edge, with a rapidly maturing soon 14 year daughter who digs Britney Spears.
Fortunately we have been able to teach her that clothes arent that all important. And that showing of the stomach isnt always that great. In our help, we have some neighbour girls, older and younger. They are pretty "corpulent" but still dress showing stomach. Whenever we, and my daughter, sees that, really uncomfortable feeling in throat...:yech:

And the showing butt and string thingie when leaning forwards in any natural situation....that must be a really fit girl for that to look good. 95% it just looks stupid and ugly, particularly if her next sitting boyfriend shows hes hairy butt as well. That really is a "must-vomit" situation.

Im conservative, so sue me...

[Kinjiss]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!....errrr.....wha?!?!

I'm not trying to be an ass or anything, but shes probably just saying thee things because she isnt so good looking. I mean, sure girls are getting sluttier and sluttier the younger you get, like the grade 8's at my school, but if they want to dress that way, then let them. And now I must depart to study spansih, and also because I forgot my what my argument was.

PS. What you parents shopuld REALLY be worried about is drugs and alcohol, oh crap, the secrets out!

--Kinjiss

[ASnogard]

Personally I prefer 'hidden treasure' to 'in yer face' styles, but the choice should be up to women themselves.

As pertaining to the younger children there very little a parent can really do...unless the parents plan to jail thier child, only real viable action a parent can take is to ensure they have a open door relationship with thier children in a manner that allows the child to be comfortable discussing personal topics with the parents. \

What caught my attention in the article was the need to pertion shops to cater for the modest look, was the market so little in demand for such fashion ?

Brittany, imo is bad news, she initially portrayed a image parents were happy to encourage thier offspring to duplicate...then she changed her image, but its harder to change a young girls idol than it was for Brittany to change her image.

[ShivaArchon]

There is quite a bit a parent can do to control their kids' fashion. Don't buy slutty clothes for your 11 year old daughter. It isn't hard.

[ASnogard]

And if she uses her pocket money to buy such clothing ?

[Rent-a-Zilla]

Sexiness is more about attitude/behaviour than clothes; if yer 11 year old is already behaving like a slut, then dressing her up in less revealing (but well tailored) clothes isn't going to make any difference.

[ShivaArchon]

Another easy solution, asnogard. Do some parenting and control what your kids buy. That's hardly unprecedented.

[Homdax]

Control the pocket-money, make it hard to earn. And hard to spend.

[Greymist]

You mean restrict money unduly to stop one specific thing?

Not that I think kids should get pocket money anyway, getting something for nothing, perhaps if there is actually a requirement of dutys etc that have to be done and if they're not they don't get any pocket money. *shrug*

[Homdax]

ok, it can be misinterpreted...but:
This is the deal in my family, as I and my wife have organized it.

- No pocket money until 13. At all. They get what they need and most of what they want.
- When 13, find a job (it becomes legal to work parttime at that age in sweden). Parttime, for weekends or nights. Max 5-10 hours per week.

Thats done with my daughter. She has a roughly $150 per month. She spends 50-100. Her own money. Her own decisions. But we can still deny her certain buys. And we do.

As for clothes, she seeks our approval. Voluntarily. She knows we have views on this, more my wife than me, and avoid conflicts wisely.

Kinjiss:
She is blond, long slightly curly hair, 1.61 mtrs tall, strong,well trained swimmer and Ju-Justu adept. Some thinks she looks just like Shirley Temple when her age, they tell us anyway.

BTW I can help You with the Spanish practice. Its my second tongue :p

¤¤ Homy

[Paladin]

I'm a closet nudist. For the most part I think clothes are silly.

-Paladin

[Greymist]

I'm too ugly to not wear clothes, it would kill people inside to look at me :)

[Delphy]

I welcome this kind of move - when I walk about town and see girls dressed up in revealing clothes and it's happening everywhere it actually makes then less attractive.

More elegant clothes, or dresses for me any day.

[FallenSoloSLS]

Question: What's the problem with young girls dressing however they want, even if it is 'sexy' (or slutty, etc.)? I don't, personally, see any problem at all with allowing people to dress how they like . . . ...



Langy, you're 18 or 19 right? So isn't that like the fox saying he thinks it's just fine to let all the chickens run loose?

I'm assuming you're a boy, so I'm also assuming that you are, or at least recently were the very reason we would not want our daughters dressing in an overtly sexual way. ;)

When I was your age, I would have said the very same thing. Come back to this thread in 15 years when you have a daughter and see if you still have the same point of view.

Now I'm not saying that girls should dress in a prudish manner. And in certain situations, say the swimming pool, revealing clothing might be appropriate. But in school, in normal social situations, and other normal teen activities, there is a certain level of decorum that parents can expect and enforce upon their teenage children.

Remember, though a teen child may be incorrigible and nearly impossible to live with, and though they would disagree with this, what they really want from their adult superiors (parents, teachers, etc.) is boundaries and limits.

You young'uns may disagree, but it's true.

[Langy]

Fallen - I live in a very (socially) liberal household. My parents don't limit a single thing for me. They haven't discouraged any activities since I was 8 or something, and then that was just 'don't smoke until your 18' and 'don't drink until your 21' and things of that nature. My parents have an extremely loose style - and it works perfectly. I'm generally a very happy person, and I'm well on the right track (going to a great college, doing well in school, not doing drugs nor alchohol, etc).

Boundries and limits are not what kids need. If you raise your children right and simply encourage kids to do the right things with positive reinforcement, that'll work wonders over telling them not to do things. At least it has with me.

Anyways, I may be an 18 year old male, but I'm also not the person your trying to protect your children from. I'm not a sexual predator or anything, therefor, if they dress up the way they want I won't try and attack them or anything like that. And I already said that I prefer modest dressing styles to the whole slutty look.

I guess this ties into the whole problem with kids having sex at 14 or whatever. Personally, I don't see any problem with that if they use protection and all that, and if they have been paying attention during sex ed (which I was hammered with at school since something like the third grade), then they'd know that not wearing protection could be a very bad thing. Hell, I don't even think two 10 year olds having sex is any problem other than a physical one. I never did understand why parents would care if their children have sex at a young age so long as they use protection and all. Maybe I've just been corrupted by my parent's own parenting style.

I guess the whole thing comes down to why do you want to limit your childs behavior and everything towards some puritan ideal that, from what I've seen, only leads to kids who are total social outcasts and eventually get put in jail when they finally break the through the bindings their parents have given them and start actually experiencing the world rather than the ultra-protective bubble universe their parents put them in until they're 18?

Reminds me so much of the German couple that was married for seven years and went to a clinic about not being able to have a baby and, when asked how often they have sex, the clinic learned that this couple never even heard of it, much the less practiced it...

[Homdax]

Reminds me so much of the German couple that was married for seven years and went to a clinic about not being able to have a baby and, when asked how often they have sex, the clinic learned that this couple never even heard of it, much the less practiced it... :omg: Could it actually be true?


Ok, Langy, seems to have worked for You. In YOUR opinion, mind You...
But for everyone it works for, there are 99 that NEED restrictions, to one degree or another. You're just a lucky b-d...:D

[Capella]

Interesting there seems to be two camps here, those that consider skin a taboo to be regulated, and those that don't. Maybe a third camp of those that are just discovering skin, and they are untrained at this point and hardly have a valuable opinon other than *yeah skin must see more (at least on good looking peeps)*.

I worked with a young woman (green eyed blond) that could best be discribed as a barbie doll. She was a IT analyist, she would dress in very short skirts you could not avoid looking up when see sat (and she always sat so you could), and would kick her shoes off and play with them while trying to conduct business. And she squirmed (and it turned out she was a twin). She was a drunks dream.

When chatting about non-business she would tell how she used her looks and smarmy brain to advance in the world. It was distracting at first, then I just tended to ignore it (i had to work with her). Her personallity was very I'm better than you because I'm beautiful and you will never be.

After the initial distraction there was really no more that she could reveal without being fired. Eventually she settled back into more moderate clothing and clamed up about her greatness, (we were working a job for the state, and she did not fit well with the state employees).

I wondered what modified her then one day talking to her she open her desk drawer and there was a naked barbie doll stuffed in toward the back. I didn't ask, but apparently someone had got the meessage across to her.

My thinking is behavoir modification has to occur at this kind of basic in your face level to correct out fo balance social situations.

The problem with young girls is their trying to conform to the environment they are presented. Balancing wardrobe desires of their parents (or adults in any case) against their peers.

I don't think the skin taboo is anything much other than the battleground that was chosen by everyone long ago as acceptable to argue over, thankfully topics like personal hygene are pretty much univerally agreed to by all parties.

Long ago (maybe 50 years) clothing was regulated by air temps vs. cold skin, and we did not have the kind of buildings and heating we have now, so showing a lot of skin in the cold months was out. Maybe this is just a new freedom that has yet to settle out? Maybe setting the air temps in airconditioned school buildings to say 65F would fix the problem?

End rant...

carrier

PS Langy, I had the same kind of childhood, and I ended up being the parent in my house, there is a difference between liberial parents that set no limits and parents that don't care and set no limits, perhaps your parents while not setting limits still had an interest and expectations of you and you are conforming but maybe not directly aware of it? Anyway not to start a flame war, just musing.

c

[Langy]

Carrier - Yes, they had an interest and expectations, and they encouraged things they liked. But they didn't discourage things they didn't like, at least not after I became a teenager. So, instead of saying 'No! You can't wear that, you'll look like a slut!' they'd instead say something like 'Why not get something like this? It's much more classy. I bet it'll look great on you!' or something like that. But if me or my sisters chose the option they didn't like, they'd still buy it for us.

Home - Apparently it is true. Though I was wrong about seven years.

It was eight.

Article here (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_957945.html?menu=news.quirkies.sexlife).

[Chimera]

Long ago (maybe 50 years) clothing was regulated by air temps vs. cold skin, and we did not have the kind of buildings and heating we have now, so showing a lot of skin in the cold months was out. Maybe this is just a new freedom that has yet to settle out? Maybe setting the air temps in airconditioned school buildings to say 65F would fix the problem?

From my experience all that turning the temp down so it is frigid in schools does when its 95 degrees outside is tick the students off and get some people to borrow/put on jackets.

[FallenSoloSLS]

Boundries and limits are not what kids need. If you raise your children right and simply encourage kids to do the right things with positive reinforcement, that'll work wonders over telling them not to do things. At least it has with me...

I would venture to guess that you never exceeded the boundaries that your parents had in their minds for you - you might want to ask them. I still contend that at some point, teenage children (at least most teenage children) need to know the limits that they cannot exceed. Curfews, alcohol, pot, etc. . . all these are the kind of things that parents are dealing with when working with their teens.


Anyways, I may be an 18 year old male, but I'm also not the person your trying to protect your children from. I'm not a sexual predator or anything, . . ....

I don't think that most boys that engage in sexual activity with girls would consider themselves a predator. And I would agree with them. I don't consider myself one when I was 16-21. . . but be that as it may, the old addage that "boys experiment with love for sex and girls experiment with sex for love" holds a lot of water. . especially from the perspective of an adult.

I guess this ties into the whole problem with kids having sex at 14 or whatever. Personally, I don't see any problem with that if they use protection and all that, . . . .....


Come back to this thread in another 18 years and see if you still believe that. I know I had your opinion when I was your age. . . at least with regard to 16 year old girls. But from an adult perspective, the truth is that pregnancies and diseases aside, when someone begins to have sex at too young an age (and 14 is too young, believe it or not), there are all sorts of emotional issues that come to the fore, issues that the young person likely won't have the emotional tools to deal with appropriately.

[Langy]

What kind of emotional issues, Fallen? And 14 being too young is your own opinion. Others would disagree, such as myself. I know people that started having sex at 12 and they turned out fine. No severe emotional problems or anything, and I didn't notice any real change in them when they did start having sex, besides the usual boasting.

As to the limits thing, I didn't know any limits that I wouldn't be allowed to exceed, but as far as I could tell there were none. I certainly never had a curfew, and my parents would only push positive reinforcement on me to do things besides drink and smoke and things of that nature. Positive reinforcement, in my experience, works wonders over negative reinforcement any day of the week. But that's just my experience.

And as to that addage, yes, I completely agree with it. Except in the case of one of my friends, who is experimenting with relationships because he doesn't like his (ungodly strict) parents:p

Anyways, Fallen, you seem to hold dear the idea that sex=bad or something along those lines. And going from your post, that would be because young people can't deal with their emotions properly. Why do you get that idea? I honestly have no clue, and never had any problems dealing with my emotions.

Besides, what's the difference between a 14 year old and an 18 year old as far as experiences are concerned? If you've let that 14 year old do what they wish, such as watch R-rated movies or whatever, then they'll probably have the same emotional tools as the 18 year old. I'd guess so, at least. I don't really know what the devil an 'emotional tool' is and am just making this crap up because it seems to fit into my argument good.

Which reminds me, what the hell are emotional tools, and why would a 14 year old have different emotional tools from an 18 year old? Now, they may have different emotions (due to hormones and all), and I understand that. But emotional tools? What are those, experiences that tell you what is and what isn't 'socially acceptable'? I'd think that a 14 year old would already know what's acceptable and what isn't, so long as you haven't been putting too many damn restrictions on them and growing them in isolation. That never, ever leads to good things as far as I can tell...

[FallenSoloSLS]

Fallen, you seem to hold dear the idea that sex=bad or something along those lines.

No, no, no. . . not at all. Far far from it. Sex is great! Sex is fun! Sex is one of the most important acts that helps to bind an intimate adult relationship. Furthermore, I'm no prude who thinks that sex should be saved until marriage. . I'm a firm believer in test driving.

But sex is, in my opinion as well as most other grown ups opinions, is for grown ups, not for children. And a 12 year old, a 14 year old and even an 18 year old is still a child. . . not a grown up.* Don't kid yourself, sex amongst children is not a good thing. I'm not talking about necking, petting or other 1st, 2nd or 3rd base activities either. . . that too is part of the experimentation. Though I would think that a 12 year old child is still too young for even those types of activities.

Sex, is an adult act, and in a mature context, it should involve a level of intimacy that most, if not all, teenagers are emotionally incapable of. I guess that's part of what I meant by "emotional tools". Other "tools" would be the maturity that comes with age.

Like I said, come back in 18 years and let's talk. Until then, I'll leave this thread alone.

*Albiet, at 18, the line between child and grown up is pretty blurry and for most a gray area. . . which is why I believe that sexual intercourse and all that it entails with regard to relationships should really begin in college.

[Langy]

All your saying, Solo, is that 'sex is only for grownups' and things like that without explaining why. You're just taking for granted that people believe the same thing, apparently. I'm asking why you think that. I mean, I don't see anything that automatically means sex is only for grownups. What problems, if any, occur if you have sex before being a grownup? Nothing physical, besides what would happen with grownups. Nothing extreme in the emotional side, either, except for what happens between grownups. With kids having sex earlier and earlier, if sex is only for grownups for logical reasons, why do these kids have lower crime rates, and lower disease rates, than kids of previous generations?

[oneredpanther]

I see no problem with girls being completely covered up (http://www.1-design.co.uk/images/large/40b5d8c8a41ee.jpg)

[Capella]

why do these kids have lower crime rates, and lower disease rates, than kids of previous generations?

well I can support this if needed, but here goes:

1) Unwanted kids were never born, a social study on teens done about 5 years ago in the US says so ( everyone was a bit upset at the results). According to that study the crime rate in teens dropped because 25 years or so prior abortion became legal. (as I said everyone was a bit upset at the results, yet they stand)

2) Modern Medicine - the young of very poor families in the US don't die from things like worms, like they did in the 1960's. Basic medicine is available for mostly everyone.

And Panth if MORE girls could actually fit into that suit then yeah.

[Langy]

But Panth, she got arrested due to the way she's dressed. Look at the handcuffs! Brings new meaning to 'dressed to kill'...

Anyways, Carrier, I know all of that, but that doesn't address the issue of why sex is bad and evil if you're underage but suddenly becomes awesome and great when you enter college.

[SquidDNA]

It's an arbitrary, inaccurate gauge of maturity, Langy, but probably one of the easiest ones there is. I doubt I had a normal, healthy emotional development, but that was even more reason to wait a little longer than I did for the right situation.

[Capella]

[QUOTE=...but that doesn't address the issue of why sex is bad and evil if you're underage but suddenly becomes awesome and great when you enter college.[/QUOTE]

Because society has deemed it as such. if you wish to live within a specific society and benefit from it as it benefits from your contribution then you have to adapt it it's rule set.

There is no individual *biological* (note I am ignoring physological) reason I am aware of why 12 - 15 year olds can't mate, but the family/tribe/herd/village/society/pod/flock/pride/gander gets to vote too. And they have, thus the age/sex/weight/education/social class - laws/rules, which hamper some they shouldn't and don't cover others they should.

And I wouldn't say it is a thing of good vs bad, but more acceptable vs unacceptable, there is a difference.

c

[SquidDNA]

So to sum up, kids shouldn't wear sexy clothing or be sexually active prematurely because society says so, but the same society is simultaneously telling them to?

[Langy]

And I'm asking why people ascribe to that position besides that society tells them to. I don't see any logical reason to think that, I just know that it's society's viewpoint of it. I find that I don't agree with a lot of things society says, though:/

[SquidDNA]

By conforming to a set of standards, you identify yourself as someone who can appreciate those standards, and you're more likely to be accepted by other people of the same set. This can have pretty obvious advantages.

[Capella]

Circles within circles, society is not homogenious. While rules enforcement and moral standards reside with one segement another is trying to sell sell sell at any cost by any means possible. I always love it when people complain about big companies then in the same breath say their mutuals funds need to perform better. I mean hello?

c

[ShivaArchon]

As if selling what people want is some kind of crime...

[Vaarok]

Pithy wisdom: Looking fashionable does not always equate looking attractive.

[A176]

So to sum up, kids shouldn't wear sexy clothing or be sexually active prematurely because society says so, but the same society is simultaneously telling them to?
Yes and No. Society doesn't tell them to - they do it on their own, and thanks to the ass parents of said youngings, they don't know better.

[SquidDNA]

I'm talking about the military/industrial/popculture/glamor magazine complex.

[Capella]

As if selling what people want is some kind of crime...

Marketing cigerettes to kids as cool (they really did that until they were stopped). Selling is what keeps your job even if you are not the one doing sales. The problem is selling is hard, and thankless, and the easy way out is not sometimes the most moral way out.

c