Comment 62683

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted April 25, 2011 at 23:05:27

I'm all for bashing corporate fashion, but we should be careful what kind of language and implications we throw around here. What defines "dressing like a "slut" or a "tramp"? Tight? Short? Showing skin in hot weather? Can a girl's clothing really signify a sexual invitation or offer of prostitution? What if our young sons want to start dressing too provocatively (or, gasp, "gay") by our standards? On the other hand, writing "juicy" across the ass of an 8-year-old girl or selling padded bras to six-year-olds says a lot of ugly, sexist things about the people running Abercrombie & Fitch and other such fashion giants (but then again, we already knew that). This is the kind of thing that many Muslim women refer to when asked about whether they feel "oppressed" by burquas.

Young girls wanting to dress like "women" with make-up and feminine clothing isn't new. It was all the rage when I was young, and long before that (and a years-long battle between my own sister and mother). Our grandmothers, no doubt, were being scolded by their elders for showing too much ankle or some such absurdity. In each and every case, just like cigarettes, firecrackers or anything else from the forbidden world of grown-ups, it only increases the allure for our kids.

Also worth noting, there have been some fairly significant changes in the age at which young girls hit puberty, varying both genetically and environmentally. For some populations in some parts of the world (especially where calories are abundant), half of girls have hit puberty by nine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty#Tim...

"Today, the notion of progress in a single line without goal or limit seems perhaps the most parochial notion of a very parochial century." — Lewis Mumford

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds