Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Let's talk about rape culture.

1235742

Posts

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Heartlash wrote: »
    Bleh, this is why I tend to shy away from discussions about something as large as society. You and I both just committed the same logical fallacy, neither one of us can prove what we just said. We operate under anecdotal and observational assumptions.

    Actually, I do believe I could, if I tracked down the appropriate journals.

    But I'm guessing The Cat will show up with a few links so as to save me the effort.

    Incenjucar on
  • logic7logic7 Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Leitner wrote: »
    Welp, can't find the article but someone else posted some evidence anyway.

    So this thing in Jersey, how exactly are they expected to prove that consent was given? A notarised time stamped letter of consent (I mean something like that would be pretty hard to force someone to do if they didn't want to) or what?

    How does it not run ramshod over the central basis of law (innocent until proven guilty)

    The new jersey law dictates that if the defendant knew the sex happened without freely given yes-means-yes permission, then the defendant should be found guilty (as opposed to if the defendant had sex without hearing the word no. some victims may be too stunned to speak, for example, or are afraid that if they resist a rape will turn into a rape-murder). If the defendant -believed- that the sex happened with same yes-means-yes permission, then the prosecution must prove that the defendant's belief was unreasonable.

    sounds to me like "guilty before proven innocent".

    logic7 on
  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    adytum wrote: »
    One thing I'm curious to know from the rape-culture perpetrators:

    What are examples of cultures that aren't rape cultures?
    Please be specific.

    This is a point I agree with. Yes, the concept of rape culture is worth discussion... but it's not a witch hunt where you use such general definitions that it applies to anyone/any culture you want. That is how you delegitimize a discussion.

    Chanus on
    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    You life in a fantasy land fyi. From the Orange County gang rape case of a few years ago, where the defendants were filmed raping a girl who was passed-out drunk on a pool table and violating her with objects:
    No, this incident suggests that the young Haidl is growing up.

    In the first rape case, his father, who made a fortune selling used government cars in Rancho Cucamonga, funded a nine-member legal defense team—not including the army of private detectives, on-duty police officers and assorted other Haidl family camp followers. They called Jane Doe 1 a "slut" who enticed an "innocent . . . little boy" (that would be six-foot-plus Greg Haidl, who has had six known separate criminal episodes in the past three years). In hopes of forcing Jane Doe 1 to decline prosecution, they probed her entire life—tailed her, posted inflammatory fliers in her neighborhood, spread savage rumors about her family, sued investigating police agencies, and released her private medical records to members of the media. Some jurors weren't bothered; some actually received post-trial checks from Haidl in return for a promise to act as consultants at the retrial, which could begin later this year.
    The Haidl case actually made news because the prosecution made the "shocking" case during closing arguments that a woman who was sexually promiscuous could still be raped!
    What the defendants' family did, though vile, is not a legal defense. Nowhere in there did I see evidence that they were allowed to argue in court that the victim's alleged promoscuity is a defense to the legal charge of rape. My statement stands- the victim's promiscuity is not admissible under modern rules of criminal evidence (at least not in the US).

    As to your UK example, I am not familiar with UK rules regarding admissibility of such evidence. If I was unclear, I was only talking about US criminal law.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • logic7logic7 Registered User
    edited October 2009
    logic7 wrote: »
    I've often complained to my wife about how overly sexualized young girls clothing is these days.

    a few years ago, we started seeing little girls shorts and sweats with slogans and whatnot in huge print across the butt area of the garment. My first reaction was that it focuses attention to the posterior end of little girls and inadvertently (or maybe intentionaly) makes everyone within eyesight stare at them. I said this was a bad idea and designers need to quit. Next, while shopping for my girls with the wife, we started to notice "sexy" underwear for little girls. The fuck does an 8 year old need low-rise bikini panties for??? That shit was waaaaaaay over the top and the first thing I could think of was some pedo jerking to a JC Penny catalog while staring at little girl models in these things. Finally... Skinny jeans. It's bad enough wne guys wear 'em, but when a developing 14-17 year old girl is in them along with skin tight shirts, it's inviting grown ass men that wouldn't otherwise stare at these teenagers to oogle them. I've voiced my distaste for them, yet my wife doesn't see anything wrong with them and continues to buy them for my oldest girl (she's 15). Also, girls shorts are getting shorter and shorter. These days, you almost CAN'T buy anything that's not skin tight and ultra short (to the point of all but showing a hint of ass cheek) for teenage girls anymore. Thankfully, schools started banning thong underwear on teenage girls... well, visible whale-tails anyways. I'm pretty sure the girls are still wearing them, but what the fuck for??? Low Rise jeans in juniors sizes and half tops for teens only make it worse.

    And this shit is available at EVERY Walmart in the U.S. In fact, Walmart pretty much doesn't sell anything for teenage girls that's NOT sexually charged.

    All of this fosters an environment where teenage girls, and even pre-teens, are seen by their peers and some grown ass men as sexual objects. This can lead to an increase in the incidents of rape among teenagers and pedos looking to get that 16 year old girl next door drunk so he can "score".

    While I agree with you, by and large, regarding the availability and prevalence of...sexualized, I guess, for lack of a better term, clothing for young women I'm not sure that it's really a matter of big companies wanting to sexualize little girls.

    Teen girls see adult women wearing these clothes in movies, on TV, in music videos, on the street, etc. The women wearing the clothes look good and attract attention, so the teen girls want to wear those clothes, too. The teen girl's little sister sees her big sister, or her mother, or her aunt or cousin, wearing these clothes and wants to emulate her. When women primarily wore dresses and demure blouses, little girls wore dresses and demure blouses. When women primarily wore jeans and more form-fitting blouses, little girls started wearing jeans and more fitted blouses. Now women wear a lot of skinny, low-rise, hip-hugging shorts cut off an inch below the butt-cheek with halter tops or skin-tight t-shirts. Guess what little girls want to wear? And as long as little girls want them, some mothers will buy them, and as long as mothers want to buy them...someone's going to sell them.

    I'm not saying it's good but I don't think it's either a sick attempt at sexualizing children on the part of marketing executives or even a surprising.

    I do.

    At some point, a flag should have gone off in someone's head saying "Do we REALLY need to be making this stuff for little girls? Is it appropriate?".

    Apparently, money, or the thought of making more by peddling this stuff to little girls overrides any decency meter a person may have.

    logic7 on
  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    psychotix wrote: »
    I think date rape is the same as other kinds of rape, too. I think there's a culture that says "if he buys you dinner, you should probably put out," and teaches women that men get mad if they won't, and teaches men that that anger is legitimate. It isn't. Women are taught that they somehow owe men sex if the men do xyz. Nobody ever owes anybody sex.

    This is true, but that's a rather one sided view of things.

    Women also know that if a man invites you out for dinner, and it's not McDonalds, he's trying to get into your pants, there is no other reason. So if the woman doesn't want to have sex with him, she should refuse the free meal. If she keeps doing it, that makes her a problem. A man has no right to get mad that a woman doesn't sleep with him after a dinner. He does have a right to get mad if said woman is knowingly taking the free meals and using the situation.

    I have plenty of female friends that will use their sexuality to land favors at work, dinners (bought buy guys they have no intention of sleeping with but will egg them on), and free drinks.

    I don't know many guys that get mad because they didn't get laid. Most get mad when they realize the women are willing to string people along to get whatever they want and using sex as bait.

    Jesus Christ I am adding this post to rapeculture.txt

    A woman is "a problem" if she wants to have dinner with a guy but not sleep with him

    What is wrong with you

    I never said that, so don't try and twist things.

    I said it's a problem when a woman takes advantage of a guy. Knowing full well what his intentions are (he isn't paying 200 a plate for no reason), and is interested in her, and simply uses it as a meal, or drink ticket. Several of my female friends do this, they admit it. They'll string it along until he figures out they are just dining/partying on his tab and then bail.

    In these cases, the guys are not mad that they didn't want to have sex, they are mad that they were just played for money/favors.

    I've been invited out to dinner by many women who I didn't want to sleep with and it was obvious they were interested in me, I said no.

    psychotix on
  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    logic7 wrote: »
    I do.

    At some point, a flag should have gone off in someone's head saying "Do we REALLY need to be making this stuff for little girls? Is it appropriate?".

    Apparently, money, or the thought of making more by peddling this stuff to little girls overrides any decency meter a person may have.

    I sincerely wish I lived in your world where decency trumps making money.

    Honestly.

    Chanus on
    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited August 2011
    ...

    adytum on
    etxvv5.jpg
  • BroloBrolo Broseidon Lord of the BroceanRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    logic7 wrote: »
    I've often complained to my wife about how overly sexualized young girls clothing is these days.

    a few years ago, we started seeing little girls shorts and sweats with slogans and whatnot in huge print across the butt area of the garment. My first reaction was that it focuses attention to the posterior end of little girls and inadvertently (or maybe intentionaly) makes everyone within eyesight stare at them. I said this was a bad idea and designers need to quit. Next, while shopping for my girls with the wife, we started to notice "sexy" underwear for little girls. The fuck does an 8 year old need low-rise bikini panties for??? That shit was waaaaaaay over the top and the first thing I could think of was some pedo jerking to a JC Penny catalog while staring at little girl models in these things. Finally... Skinny jeans. It's bad enough wne guys wear 'em, but when a developing 14-17 year old girl is in them along with skin tight shirts, it's inviting grown ass men that wouldn't otherwise stare at these teenagers to oogle them. I've voiced my distaste for them, yet my wife doesn't see anything wrong with them and continues to buy them for my oldest girl (she's 15). Also, girls shorts are getting shorter and shorter. These days, you almost CAN'T buy anything that's not skin tight and ultra short (to the point of all but showing a hint of ass cheek) for teenage girls anymore. Thankfully, schools started banning thong underwear on teenage girls... well, visible whale-tails anyways. I'm pretty sure the girls are still wearing them, but what the fuck for??? Low Rise jeans in juniors sizes and half tops for teens only make it worse.

    And this shit is available at EVERY Walmart in the U.S. In fact, Walmart pretty much doesn't sell anything for teenage girls that's NOT sexually charged.

    All of this fosters an environment where teenage girls, and even pre-teens, are seen by their peers and some grown ass men as sexual objects. This can lead to an increase in the incidents of rape among teenagers and pedos looking to get that 16 year old girl next door drunk so he can "score".

    While I agree with you, by and large, regarding the availability and prevalence of...sexualized, I guess, for lack of a better term, clothing for young women I'm not sure that it's really a matter of big companies wanting to sexualize little girls.

    Teen girls see adult women wearing these clothes in movies, on TV, in music videos, on the street, etc. The women wearing the clothes look good and attract attention, so the teen girls want to wear those clothes, too. The teen girl's little sister sees her big sister, or her mother, or her aunt or cousin, wearing these clothes and wants to emulate her. When women primarily wore dresses and demure blouses, little girls wore dresses and demure blouses. When women primarily wore jeans and more form-fitting blouses, little girls started wearing jeans and more fitted blouses. Now women wear a lot of skinny, low-rise, hip-hugging shorts cut off an inch below the butt-cheek with halter tops or skin-tight t-shirts. Guess what little girls want to wear? And as long as little girls want them, some mothers will buy them, and as long as mothers want to buy them...someone's going to sell them.

    I'm not saying it's good but I don't think it's either a sick attempt at sexualizing children on the part of marketing executives or even a surprising.

    Kudos to you, American Apparel:

    http://materialconcern.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/americaapparel.jpg
    http://www.diminishingreturns.net/images/blog/06winter/american_apparel_ad.jpg
    http://transracial.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/aaad.jpg
    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_J4YNPAw0n4Q/SDduxWGyScI/AAAAAAAAALo/R9e1Z6HqZi0/s400/american+apparel+ad+4.jpg
    http://dailybiz.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/the_tap_panty.jpg
    http://ndn3.newsweek.com/media/47/071106_AmericanApparelAd_wide-horizontal.jpg
    http://www.pollsb.com/photos/60/12798-new_american_apparel_ad.jpg

    All of these are some NSFW (they're billboards and magazine ads so no nudity, but not something you'd want on the office computer).

    Brolo on
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Leitner wrote: »
    Welp, can't find the article but someone else posted some evidence anyway.

    So this thing in Jersey, how exactly are they expected to prove that consent was given? A notarised time stamped letter of consent (I mean something like that would be pretty hard to force someone to do if they didn't want to) or what?

    How does it not run ramshod over the central basis of law (innocent until proven guilty)

    The new jersey law dictates that if the defendant knew the sex happened without freely given yes-means-yes permission, then the defendant should be found guilty (as opposed to if the defendant had sex without hearing the word no. some victims may be too stunned to speak, for example, or are afraid that if they resist a rape will turn into a rape-murder). If the defendant -believed- that the sex happened with same yes-means-yes permission, then the prosecution must prove that the defendant's belief was unreasonable.

    That doesn't move the goalposts at all. That is if we're taking believed yes - means -yes to include clear non-verbal consent. How does that help prosecute more rapists? And I'm sorry but 'too stunned' to say no? Isn't that a tad offensive to actual rape victims?

    Leitner on
  • MaceraMacera Registered User
    edited October 2009
    adytum wrote: »
    logic7 wrote: »
    At some point, a flag should have gone off in someone's head saying "Do we REALLY need to be making this stuff for little girls? Is it appropriate?".

    Apparently, money, or the thought of making more by peddling this stuff to little girls overrides any decency meter a person may have.

    I think it's appalling as well, but if people didn't buy it then nobody would sell it.

    You could say the same thing about heroin.

    Macera on
    xet8c.gif
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    logic7 wrote: »
    Apparently, money, or the thought of making more by peddling this stuff to little girls overrides any decency meter a person may have.

    Yes.

    See: Chocolate, Diamonds, Sweatshops, etc.

    That all said, the biggest issue with girls' clothing is that they have very few -alternatives- available to them for dressing modestly. Girls who want to show off their bodies have access to scissors.

    Incenjucar on
  • KistraKistra Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    psychotix wrote: »
    I think date rape is the same as other kinds of rape, too. I think there's a culture that says "if he buys you dinner, you should probably put out," and teaches women that men get mad if they won't, and teaches men that that anger is legitimate. It isn't. Women are taught that they somehow owe men sex if the men do xyz. Nobody ever owes anybody sex.

    This is true, but that's a rather one sided view of things.

    Women also know that if a man invites you out for dinner, and it's not McDonalds, he's trying to get into your pants, there is no other reason. So if the woman doesn't want to have sex with him, she should refuse the free meal. If she keeps doing it, that makes her a problem. A man has no right to get mad that a woman doesn't sleep with him after a dinner. He does have a right to get mad if said woman is knowingly taking the free meals and using the situation.

    I have plenty of female friends that will use their sexuality to land favors at work, dinners (bought buy guys they have no intention of sleeping with but will egg them on), and free drinks.

    I don't know many guys that get mad because they didn't get laid. Most get mad when they realize the women are willing to string people along to get whatever they want and using sex as bait.

    I really hope you are joking.

    So no male has ever just wanted to be friends with any female anywhere?

    Isn't the point of dating to get to know the other person? Cause you are implying that women should be able to psychically identify the guys that they will click with before getting to know them.

    Kistra on
    Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
  • logic7logic7 Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    logic7 wrote: »
    I do.

    At some point, a flag should have gone off in someone's head saying "Do we REALLY need to be making this stuff for little girls? Is it appropriate?".

    Apparently, money, or the thought of making more by peddling this stuff to little girls overrides any decency meter a person may have.

    I sincerely wish I lived in your world where decency trumps making money.

    Honestly.

    I wish I lived in that world too.

    logic7 on
  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    Bleh, this is why I tend to shy away from discussions about something as large as society. You and I both just committed the same logical fallacy, neither one of us can prove what we just said. We operate under anecdotal and observational assumptions.

    Actually, I do believe I could, if I tracked down the appropriate journals.

    But I'm guessing The Cat will show up with a few links so as to save me the effort.

    Again, though, can you prove that society, by and large, would assess the behavior of the boys as appropriate? Excluding anything about the girl. If the question is simply "Did these boys act in a manner which is acceptable?" How do you think people would respond?

    Heartlash on
    My indie mobile gaming studio: Elder Aeons
    Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
  • MaceraMacera Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Rolo wrote: »

    Fuck you, American Apparel, go die in a fire for contributing to a culture which sexualizes minors.

    Macera on
    xet8c.gif
  • lenore beadsmanlenore beadsman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Okay, so in the scenario of women "using their sexuality" to get drinks and dinner and stuff from men:

    Why is it that women's sexuality is powerful in this way? What makes it so valuable in a way that men's sexuality presumably isn't?

    lenore beadsman on
  • scrivenerjonesscrivenerjones Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    You life in a fantasy land fyi. From the Orange County gang rape case of a few years ago, where the defendants were filmed raping a girl who was passed-out drunk on a pool table and violating her with objects:
    No, this incident suggests that the young Haidl is growing up.

    In the first rape case, his father, who made a fortune selling used government cars in Rancho Cucamonga, funded a nine-member legal defense team—not including the army of private detectives, on-duty police officers and assorted other Haidl family camp followers. They called Jane Doe 1 a "slut" who enticed an "innocent . . . little boy" (that would be six-foot-plus Greg Haidl, who has had six known separate criminal episodes in the past three years). In hopes of forcing Jane Doe 1 to decline prosecution, they probed her entire life—tailed her, posted inflammatory fliers in her neighborhood, spread savage rumors about her family, sued investigating police agencies, and released her private medical records to members of the media. Some jurors weren't bothered; some actually received post-trial checks from Haidl in return for a promise to act as consultants at the retrial, which could begin later this year.
    The Haidl case actually made news because the prosecution made the "shocking" case during closing arguments that a woman who was sexually promiscuous could still be raped!
    What the defendants' family did, though vile, is not a legal defense. Nowhere in there did I see evidence that they were allowed to argue in court that the victim's alleged promoscuity is a defense to the legal charge of rape. My statement stands- the victim's promiscuity is not admissible under modern rules of criminal evidence (at least not in the US).

    As to your UK example, I am not familiar with UK rules regarding admissibility of such evidence. If I was unclear, I was only talking about US criminal law.
    I'm not sure how useful the technical distinction you are trying to draw is, but the Haidl gang's attorneys brought up Jane Doe's "promiscuity" in front of the jury too. From a different article:
    At the May 3 start of the Orange County trial of three teenage boys accused of gang-raping an unconscious minor, a defense attorney made a startling assertion: the alleged victim enticed the "sweet," "caring," "kind" defendants into a sexual frenzy and then, while faking unconsciousness, sexually assaulted them. At one point, the attorney, an incredulous Joseph G. Cavallo, blurted out to the jury, "Why isn't she being charged with this crime?"

    "She knew how to use her body. She knew how to use sex," said Cavallo, one of at least nine defense lawyers (not including the publicist, a jury consultant and an army of private investigators) representing Gregory Scott Haidl, 18; Kyle Joseph Nachreiner, 19; and Keith James Spann, 19. They've pleaded not guilty to 24 felony counts for the July 2002 Newport Beach incident. Referring to a video they made of the incident, Cavallo said, "The boys had every reason to believe she consented: she orchestrated it."

    It was just one of the defense's many remarkable claims after apparently horrified jurors inspected prosecution-supplied photographs of the late night gang bang. The images (which I'll describe momentarily) are so disturbing that the defense team wasted no time calling the filmed episode repugnant, but blamed it solely on the 16-year-old girl known in court only as Jane Doe.

    "The things she wanted done were done," said John Barnett, counsel for Nachreiner. "It's disgusting and it's awful. Who would consent to this? Jane Doe. Nobody is going to argue this isn't morally outrageous. It is, but it was a choice. . . . This is exactly what she wanted. They believed her when she says she wanted to be a porn star."

    Peter Morreale, who represents Spann, claimed that Doe rarely wore panties and flirted, and that his client "was [then] 17 years old and tripping over himself" to have "consensual sex" with her. On the night of the alleged crime, Doe first rejected their invitation to come to their party.

    "They were bummed that they're not going to get any!" said Morreale. Later, Doe changed her mind and drove to Newport Beach. When she called to say she'd arrive soon the boys "high-fived" each other. He claims the girl promised Nachreiner that she wanted a gang bang. "I'm not advocating this girl wanted to be the next Marilyn Chambers or a deep-throat expert, but that was her mentality," said Morreale.

    In just his opening statement, a pacing, finger-pointing Cavallo told the jury that the girl—next to the tape itself, the prosecution's star witness--is "a nut," "a pathological liar," "a cheater," an "out-of-control girl," "the aggressor," a wanna-be "porn star," "a troubled young lady," "a tease--that's what she is!" "a mess," a "master manipulator," a "little opportunist," "a compulsive liar," "a cheat--that's what she is" and a "callous" drug addict and alcoholic who trimmed her pubic hair, bragged about liking group sex and once drank a beer in a car.

    "Why was her vagina and anus completely shaved?" Cavallo asked jurors. "How many teenagers have a shaved vagina and anus? I don't know, but I can think of a reason. Sex! She's a sexual person!"

    During preliminary hearings, Cavallo called Doe a "slut"; on this day, he stayed away from the word. However, he told the jury several times that everyone, including the girl's parents, "knows what she is." Talk outside the courtroom was less coy. In the hallway just outside, a defense consultant openly and repeatedly called Jane Doe "a fucking whore."

    scrivenerjones on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Leitner wrote: »
    Welp, can't find the article but someone else posted some evidence anyway.

    So this thing in Jersey, how exactly are they expected to prove that consent was given? A notarised time stamped letter of consent (I mean something like that would be pretty hard to force someone to do if they didn't want to) or what?

    How does it not run ramshod over the central basis of law (innocent until proven guilty)

    The new jersey law dictates that if the defendant knew the sex happened without freely given yes-means-yes permission, then the defendant should be found guilty (as opposed to if the defendant had sex without hearing the word no. some victims may be too stunned to speak, for example, or are afraid that if they resist a rape will turn into a rape-murder). If the defendant -believed- that the sex happened with same yes-means-yes permission, then the prosecution must prove that the defendant's belief was unreasonable.
    That's different. That's really just a question of the defendant's mental state. It doesn't require the defense to prove anything and the onus is still on the prosecution to show that the defendant knew, or should have known, that there was no consent.

    I doubt it makes it any easier to get a conviction for rape in NJ. In a "he said, she said" case where the only witnesses are two people who knew each other, it is easy for the defense to create reasonable doubt so long as there is any ambiguity as to the issue of consent.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    logic7 wrote: »
    logic7 wrote: »
    I've often complained to my wife about how overly sexualized young girls clothing is these days.

    a few years ago, we started seeing little girls shorts and sweats with slogans and whatnot in huge print across the butt area of the garment. My first reaction was that it focuses attention to the posterior end of little girls and inadvertently (or maybe intentionaly) makes everyone within eyesight stare at them. I said this was a bad idea and designers need to quit. Next, while shopping for my girls with the wife, we started to notice "sexy" underwear for little girls. The fuck does an 8 year old need low-rise bikini panties for??? That shit was waaaaaaay over the top and the first thing I could think of was some pedo jerking to a JC Penny catalog while staring at little girl models in these things. Finally... Skinny jeans. It's bad enough wne guys wear 'em, but when a developing 14-17 year old girl is in them along with skin tight shirts, it's inviting grown ass men that wouldn't otherwise stare at these teenagers to oogle them. I've voiced my distaste for them, yet my wife doesn't see anything wrong with them and continues to buy them for my oldest girl (she's 15). Also, girls shorts are getting shorter and shorter. These days, you almost CAN'T buy anything that's not skin tight and ultra short (to the point of all but showing a hint of ass cheek) for teenage girls anymore. Thankfully, schools started banning thong underwear on teenage girls... well, visible whale-tails anyways. I'm pretty sure the girls are still wearing them, but what the fuck for??? Low Rise jeans in juniors sizes and half tops for teens only make it worse.

    And this shit is available at EVERY Walmart in the U.S. In fact, Walmart pretty much doesn't sell anything for teenage girls that's NOT sexually charged.

    All of this fosters an environment where teenage girls, and even pre-teens, are seen by their peers and some grown ass men as sexual objects. This can lead to an increase in the incidents of rape among teenagers and pedos looking to get that 16 year old girl next door drunk so he can "score".

    While I agree with you, by and large, regarding the availability and prevalence of...sexualized, I guess, for lack of a better term, clothing for young women I'm not sure that it's really a matter of big companies wanting to sexualize little girls.

    Teen girls see adult women wearing these clothes in movies, on TV, in music videos, on the street, etc. The women wearing the clothes look good and attract attention, so the teen girls want to wear those clothes, too. The teen girl's little sister sees her big sister, or her mother, or her aunt or cousin, wearing these clothes and wants to emulate her. When women primarily wore dresses and demure blouses, little girls wore dresses and demure blouses. When women primarily wore jeans and more form-fitting blouses, little girls started wearing jeans and more fitted blouses. Now women wear a lot of skinny, low-rise, hip-hugging shorts cut off an inch below the butt-cheek with halter tops or skin-tight t-shirts. Guess what little girls want to wear? And as long as little girls want them, some mothers will buy them, and as long as mothers want to buy them...someone's going to sell them.

    I'm not saying it's good but I don't think it's either a sick attempt at sexualizing children on the part of marketing executives or even a surprising.

    I do.

    At some point, a flag should have gone off in someone's head saying "Do we REALLY need to be making this stuff for little girls? Is it appropriate?".

    Apparently, money, or the thought of making more by peddling this stuff to little girls overrides any decency meter a person may have.

    Can you honestly look around modern America and think that there is a line which merchandise-production companies will not cross if they think that there is more money to be made on the other side? Or look at debacles like the 'incubus' running shoe, or that black baby doll labeled "Monkey Baby!" that made the internet rounds last month and assume that the collective intelligence of marketing review boards is high enough to ever flag anything?

    Never attribute to malice what is more easily explained by stupidity. Clothing manufacturers note that girls' clothes marketed to ages 10-14 which are tighter, shorter, and styled more like adult fashions sell better, so they commission more work from those designers. Repeat iteratively until 8 year olds are wearing the same thing that their 22-year old cousin is wearing, which your average 50 year old would call 'slutty'. That seems like a much more likely explanation to me than a national conspiracy amongst children's-wear manufacturers to make little girls look sexier.

    CptHamilton on
    PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Okay, so in the scenario of women "using their sexuality" to get drinks and dinner and stuff from men:

    Why is it that women's sexuality is powerful in this way? What makes it so valuable in a way that men's sexuality presumably isn't?

    For one, I don't presume men can't use their sexuality in exactly the same way.

    Chanus on
    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • logic7logic7 Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    logic7 wrote: »
    Apparently, money, or the thought of making more by peddling this stuff to little girls overrides any decency meter a person may have.

    Yes.

    See: Chocolate, Diamonds, Sweatshops, etc.

    That all said, the biggest issue with girls' clothing is that they have very few -alternatives- available to them for dressing modestly. Girls who want to show off their bodies have access to scissors.

    ... and see, when I was in high school that's exactly how it was (late 80's, btw). Most girls dressed modestly. The girls that dressed "slutty" modified their clothes or bought stuff that was a size or two too small to get that skin tight fit. The average girl was simply not showing off like that.

    logic7 on
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited August 2011
    ...

    adytum on
    etxvv5.jpg
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Heartlash wrote: »
    Again, though, can you prove that society, by and large, would assess the behavior of the boys as appropriate? Excluding anything about the girl. If the question is simply "Did these boys act in a manner which is acceptable?" How do you think people would respond?

    :?

    You're asking the wrong question.

    People tend to add qualifiers to the responses, though.

    "Oh I don't agree with it, but she was asking for it! And you know boys will be boys!"

    Incenjucar on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    Okay, so in the scenario of women "using their sexuality" to get drinks and dinner and stuff from men:

    Why is it that women's sexuality is powerful in this way? What makes it so valuable in a way that men's sexuality presumably isn't?

    For one, I don't presume men can't use their sexuality in exactly the same way.

    You've rephrased the question brilliantly.

    Hachface on
  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    Okay, so in the scenario of women "using their sexuality" to get drinks and dinner and stuff from men:

    Why is it that women's sexuality is powerful in this way? What makes it so valuable in a way that men's sexuality presumably isn't?

    Men can do it as well. I get dragged to gay bars by my friend and people always try to buy me drinks. Likewise I've had plenty of women try to pick me up. I just don't take favors from someone who's obviously interested in me when I'm not interested in them.

    Society, tries to make it OK for women to do this, when in reality it's a bit of a problem.

    psychotix on
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009

    Edit: Also, the above (and the post I was responding to) assumes that the rape happens as a man desiring sexual conquest. Most sexual assaults are about personal dominance, not sex. In that case the rapist is doing it completely because he's fucked in the head, not because society said any particularly thing about women or sex.

    It is true that sexual assault is about dominance. And when the cultural narrative is that men are dominant and women are passive, sex itself becomes about dominance.

    Did I read this wrong or did you just imply that sex by nature is assault?

    Also, it's not always man on woman sexual assault. Most people just refuse to accept that "drunk girl groping and grabbing a guy" is sexual assault.
    Why is it that women's sexuality is powerful in this way? What makes it so valuable in a way that men's sexuality presumably isn't?
    Because it's hard-coded into our instincts to sow our seed as widely as possible and the prospect of tends to trigger this.

    The Muffin Man on
  • MaceraMacera Registered User
    edited October 2009
    adytum wrote: »
    Macera wrote: »
    Rolo wrote: »

    Fuck you, American Apparel, go die in a fire for contributing to a culture which sexualizes minors.

    Which of those women are minors?

    None, but who do you think is seeing these ads?

    Macera on
    xet8c.gif
  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Okay, so in the scenario of women "using their sexuality" to get drinks and dinner and stuff from men:

    Why is it that women's sexuality is powerful in this way? What makes it so valuable in a way that men's sexuality presumably isn't?

    For one, I don't presume men can't use their sexuality in exactly the same way.

    You've rephrased the question brilliantly.

    I crush books. =)

    Chanus on
    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    We have now entered into a discussion which requires parents act responsibly. We know that in many cases this will never ever happen.

    I think many of the issues regarding clothing involves people wanting to be hip and popular. Feeds of self esteem issues as much as it does issues of sexuality.

    Sheep on
    QlBGc.jpg
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited August 2011
    ...

    adytum on
    etxvv5.jpg
  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Sheep wrote: »
    We have now entered into a discussion which requires parents act responsibly. We know that in many cases this will never ever happen.

    I think many of the issues regarding clothing involves people wanting to be hip and popular. Feeds of self esteem issues as much as it does issues of sexuality.

    Well, I suppose there's the issue of "Why does showing off your goods make you popular?"

    Which I personally think is a ridiculous question... but hey...

    Chanus on
    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    With the clothing thing, the place to tackle the issue is from the people giving the attention more than those seeking it.

    Incenjucar on
  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    logic7 wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    logic7 wrote: »
    Apparently, money, or the thought of making more by peddling this stuff to little girls overrides any decency meter a person may have.

    Yes.

    See: Chocolate, Diamonds, Sweatshops, etc.

    That all said, the biggest issue with girls' clothing is that they have very few -alternatives- available to them for dressing modestly. Girls who want to show off their bodies have access to scissors.

    ... and see, when I was in high school that's exactly how it was (late 80's, btw). Most girls dressed modestly. The girls that dressed "slutty" modified their clothes or bought stuff that was a size or two too small to get that skin tight fit. The average girl was simply not showing off like that.

    And it surprises you that the average girl is now 'sluttier'? How do you think that people felt about young women's fashion who were, in the 80's your current age? Or the same thing 20 years back in the 60's? Fashion evolves. Women's fashion has predominately evolved toward a more revealing, provocative style. Young women's fashion by and large follows adult women's fashion because little girls want to look like big girls, and big girls want to look like adult women. The kids growing up now wearing low-rise jeans with whale tails will, I guarantee you, be shocked and horrified by some fashion trend amongst 13 year olds in the year 2035.

    CptHamilton on
    PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
  • scrivenerjonesscrivenerjones Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    psychotix wrote: »
    Okay, so in the scenario of women "using their sexuality" to get drinks and dinner and stuff from men:

    Why is it that women's sexuality is powerful in this way? What makes it so valuable in a way that men's sexuality presumably isn't?

    Men can do it as well. I get dragged to gay bars by my friend and people always try to buy me drinks. Likewise I've had plenty of women try to pick me up. I just don't take favors from someone who's obviously interested in me when I'm not interested in them.

    Society, tries to make it OK for women to do this, when in reality it's a bit of a problem.

    No, rape is a problem. The rape culture is a problem. Your hangup about drink- and dinner-buying as prostitution is not really a problem. Sorry!

    scrivenerjones on
  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    adytum wrote: »
    Macera wrote: »
    adytum wrote: »
    Macera wrote: »
    Rolo wrote: »

    Fuck you, American Apparel, go die in a fire for contributing to a culture which sexualizes minors.

    Which of those women are minors?

    None, but who do you think is seeing these ads?
    My social group are all in their mid-twenties. Some of them shop at American Apparel. Some of them know people that work there. So, twentysomethings?

    Just because a child might see something doesn't mean that it should be banned or censored. Not in the US, anyway.

    I think he's referring to the apparel specifically made for and marketed to teens and tweens.

    Chanus on
    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • PeregrineFalconPeregrineFalcon Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    psychotix wrote: »
    Okay, so in the scenario of women "using their sexuality" to get drinks and dinner and stuff from men:

    Why is it that women's sexuality is powerful in this way? What makes it so valuable in a way that men's sexuality presumably isn't?

    Men can do it as well. I get dragged to gay bars by my friend and people always try to buy me drinks. Likewise I've had plenty of women try to pick me up. I just don't take favors from someone who's obviously interested in me when I'm not interested in them.

    Society, tries to make it OK for women to do this, when in reality it's a bit of a problem.

    Because the only reason people buy drinks for, nay, even talk to each other is to facilitate sexual relationships, right?

    PeregrineFalcon on
    Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
    Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
  • MaceraMacera Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Sheep wrote: »
    We have now entered into a discussion which requires parents act responsibly. We know that in many cases this will never ever happen.

    I think many of the issues regarding clothing involves people wanting to be hip and popular. Feeds of self esteem issues as much as it does issues of sexuality.

    Those two things have become intertwined in our culture.

    Macera on
    xet8c.gif
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    We have now entered into a discussion which requires parents act responsibly. We know that in many cases this will never ever happen.

    I think many of the issues regarding clothing involves people wanting to be hip and popular. Feeds of self esteem issues as much as it does issues of sexuality.

    Well, I suppose there's the issue of "Why does showing off your goods make you popular?"

    Which I personally think is a ridiculous question... but hey...

    I don't think it's always necessarily showing off the goods, but the need to be edgy, offensive, or eye catching, which often includes skimpy clothing.

    Sheep on
    QlBGc.jpg
  • logic7logic7 Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Okay, so in the scenario of women "using their sexuality" to get drinks and dinner and stuff from men:

    Why is it that women's sexuality is powerful in this way? What makes it so valuable in a way that men's sexuality presumably isn't?

    I remember a case not too long ago where a teenage girl used the promis of sex as a lure to have a boy killed. I'll look for the case online. That kid's face is pretty much burned in my head 'cause I've had friends beaten up like that.

    logic7 on
This discussion has been closed.