DS and DTV Part 59

Big Threads

DS and DTV Part 59

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:53 pm

guest wrote:So.....mushymanrob in the "sex shaming" thread is an interesting one. Is this the same guy who was very proud of shagging a 16 year old schoolgirl when he was 40 odd (and working at her school) and only has eyes for the lithe, slim figures of girls young enough to be his daughters? Cause he seems to have come across all prude and Victorian about Little Mix and their leotards. He's worried about their young teenage fanbase...... :ooer:


He's not the only one being a prude or Victorian though, many have tried to tell posters why those young women should be allowed to wear. and it's ironic that many posters basically want women who look ' too sexy' to cover up.... A bit like those fucking terrorists do. Perhaps hijabs and burkas would be better for them m

Even posters like Hobbit Feet or Blue eyes Mrs P are acting like these women can't wear what ever the hell they want without being shamed because.. won't somebody think of the children. If their kids are twerking or playing up like she says then maybe look first at their own bad parenting or weird attitudes rather than trying to shift the blame onto the outfits worn by some girl band. Just a thought.
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby VR6storm » Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:02 pm

mavis cruet wrote:
VR6storm wrote:
mavis cruet wrote:
VR6storm wrote:
mavis cruet wrote:Regarding Sam the football that a guest keeps on mentioning , is he not autistic? Perhaps may explain a lot of his posts? :dunno: Or am i thinking of someone else?
Yes.... probably BigFeet....... :whistle:



Pardon? goggled it and still none the wiser :dunno:
I'm sure you're not Mavis........... :whistle: :whistle:


:laughing: Yes, i gathered that, but you are looking a tad silly now VR because, for the trillionth time, i am NOT whoever you think i am. I am a 'vanilla' poster on DS and here really, can you not see that? :again?:
Your hoping i can't see that, but your hope is misplaced. There's nothing 'Vanilla' about you at all.

Seen much of Ginny Talbot lately?? :whistle: :whistle:
[ Public Service Message : The above post may contain irony, sarcasm and outright lies. ]
User avatar
VR6storm
 
Posts: 1426
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 5:43 pm

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby guest » Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:03 pm

Guest wrote:
guest wrote:So.....mushymanrob in the "sex shaming" thread is an interesting one. Is this the same guy who was very proud of shagging a 16 year old schoolgirl when he was 40 odd (and working at her school) and only has eyes for the lithe, slim figures of girls young enough to be his daughters? Cause he seems to have come across all prude and Victorian about Little Mix and their leotards. He's worried about their young teenage fanbase...... :ooer:


He's not the only one being a prude or Victorian though, many have tried to tell posters why those young women should be allowed to wear. and it's ironic that many posters basically want women who look ' too sexy' to cover up.... A bit like those fucking terrorists do. Perhaps hijabs and burkas would be better for them m

Even posters like Hobbit Feet or Blue eyes Mrs P are acting like these women can't wear what ever the hell they want without being shamed because.. won't somebody think of the children. If their kids are twerking or playing up like she says then maybe look first at their own bad parenting or weird attitudes rather than trying to shift the blame onto the outfits worn by some girl band. Just a thought.


That was not the point of my post. I don't get his viewpoint considering his own attitude toward young girls. Also, Hobbit Feet is no longer a poster I respect in any way but she's not acting like you say she is in that thread.
User avatar
guest
 

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby jp761 » Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:05 pm

Guest wrote:A leopard doesn't change his spots

Hey I like a strong woman and I know strong and sexual woman appreciate me hehe I like what you write on here and you don't take no BS from the idiots who think their better than everyone else be good to hear back from you



I've reported the creep but I doubt anything will be done. But if not then I need to think of another way of exposing this creep. Again!
^^^ :pmsl: :pmsl: Don't tell me some people on here 'automatically' believe this post. Come on people.

If you're trying to be me, very, very, poor attempt. Picking up on the fact I do like strong women, and have said so, they are indeed more fun. ;) You should have put strong and feisty though. :thumbsup:

Why don't you speak up who sent you that message? Or is it just a figment of your imagination. Your imagination may well be very creepy. Unless you can give more details of course. :thumbsup: Who supposedly sent you that PM? Don't be shy now. :more beer:
User avatar
jp761
 
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby mavis cruet » Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:14 pm

Pardon? goggled it and still none the wiser :dunno:[/quote] I'm sure you're not Mavis........... :whistle: :whistle:[/quote]

:laughing: Yes, i gathered that, but you are looking a tad silly now VR because, for the trillionth time, i am NOT whoever you think i am. I am a 'vanilla' poster on DS and here really, can you not see that? :again?:[/quote] Your hoping i can't see that, but your hope is misplaced. There's nothing 'Vanilla' about you at all.

Seen much of Ginny Talbot lately?? :whistle: :whistle:[/quote]

:flog: ok VR knock yourself out but eventually you will have to concede :gabby: :twirl:
User avatar
mavis cruet
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:34 pm

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby VR6storm » Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:17 pm

mavis cruet wrote: :flog: ok VR knock yourself out but eventually you will have to concede :gabby: :twirl:


We know who you are......
We know who you arrrrrrrre.........
Big Feet of DS
We know who you are.

:pmsl: :pmsl:
[ Public Service Message : The above post may contain irony, sarcasm and outright lies. ]
User avatar
VR6storm
 
Posts: 1426
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 5:43 pm

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:35 pm

guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
guest wrote:So.....mushymanrob in the "sex shaming" thread is an interesting one. Is this the same guy who was very proud of shagging a 16 year old schoolgirl when he was 40 odd (and working at her school) and only has eyes for the lithe, slim figures of girls young enough to be his daughters? Cause he seems to have come across all prude and Victorian about Little Mix and their leotards. He's worried about their young teenage fanbase...... :ooer:


He's not the only one being a prude or Victorian though, many have tried to tell posters why those young women should be allowed to wear. and it's ironic that many posters basically want women who look ' too sexy' to cover up.... A bit like those fucking terrorists do. Perhaps hijabs and burkas would be better for them m

Even posters like Hobbit Feet or Blue eyes Mrs P are acting like these women can't wear what ever the hell they want without being shamed because.. won't somebody think of the children. If their kids are twerking or playing up like she says then maybe look first at their own bad parenting or weird attitudes rather than trying to shift the blame onto the outfits worn by some girl band. Just a thought.


That was not the point of my post. I don't get his viewpoint considering his own attitude toward young girls. Also, Hobbit Feet is no longer a poster I respect in any way but she's not acting like you say she is in that thread.


sorry but She did actually talk about her kid at school discos and tried to blame what young women like Little Mix wear on stage as her scapegoat. Who the hell is she to dictate what adult women should wear. Not all that different from saying if a skirt is too short they must be asking for it kin of attitude. If she or others can't teach her kids right from wrong and looks to a girl band to do it for her, then I'm not surprised others pick her up on it.
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:35 pm

Guest wrote:At least here you have a right to reply without having to join,

On DTV You can see threads and might even see your name, but if you click anything its private unless you join, but the right of reply has gone as a lot of email addresses are banned and when you finally find one that isn't, you never receive the email to verify the account.
DS is a forum where people talk about others all day everyday. but when they find out about SD they get all humpy and how dare we :woteva:

What's that all about? Why are a lot of email addresses banned there? Not many people would even be posting there in the first place, I would have thought. :wurms:
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Si_Crewe » Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:36 pm

Guest wrote:He's not the only one being a prude or Victorian though, many have tried to tell posters why those young women should be allowed to wear. and it's ironic that many posters basically want women who look ' too sexy' to cover up.... A bit like those fucking terrorists do. Perhaps hijabs and burkas would be better for them m

Even posters like Hobbit Feet or Blue eyes Mrs P are acting like these women can't wear what ever the hell they want without being shamed because.. won't somebody think of the children. If their kids are twerking or playing up like she says then maybe look first at their own bad parenting or weird attitudes rather than trying to shift the blame onto the outfits worn by some girl band. Just a thought.


Bit of a contradiction, isn't it?

One minute you're saying "Kids should be allowed to wear whatever the hell they like" and then you're saying "if kids start 'playing up' it's cos of bad parenting".

I seem to recall somebody in that thread said something along the lines of "the world is being threatened by terrorism and people are losing their shit over how kids dress?!!!!"
Trouble is that we're also living in a world where pedophilia, grooming and rape-gangs are a thing too so it's hardly surprising if parents aren't keen on the idea of sexualising their kids, much less exposing them to overly permissive attitudes and opinions.

As the old saying goes; you don't have to be able to outrun the bear. You just have to be able to outrun the other people being chased by the bear.
In context, regardless of how likely it is that a kid is going to end up in trouble as a result of the way they dress or the attitudes they've adopted, anything which reduces that risk might mean that it's less likely that it'll be your kid that gets involved in that sort of stuff.
Hard to say whether that attitude has any merit or not but you can't blame parents for thinking that way and, frankly, I'd rather be considered a prudish parent of an unmolested child than risk becoming the permissive parent of a rape victim.
User avatar
Si_Crewe
 
Posts: 4499
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:33 am

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Frankly » Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:49 pm

Si_Crewe wrote:
Guest wrote:He's not the only one being a prude or Victorian though, many have tried to tell posters why those young women should be allowed to wear. and it's ironic that many posters basically want women who look ' too sexy' to cover up.... A bit like those fucking terrorists do. Perhaps hijabs and burkas would be better for them m

Even posters like Hobbit Feet or Blue eyes Mrs P are acting like these women can't wear what ever the hell they want without being shamed because.. won't somebody think of the children. If their kids are twerking or playing up like she says then maybe look first at their own bad parenting or weird attitudes rather than trying to shift the blame onto the outfits worn by some girl band. Just a thought.


Bit of a contradiction, isn't it?

One minute you're saying "Kids should be allowed to wear whatever the hell they like" and then you're saying "if kids start 'playing up' it's cos of bad parenting".

I seem to recall somebody in that thread said something along the lines of "the world is being threatened by terrorism and people are losing their shit over how kids dress?!!!!"
Trouble is that we're also living in a world where pedophilia, grooming and rape-gangs are a thing too so it's hardly surprising if parents aren't keen on the idea of sexualising their kids, much less exposing them to overly permissive attitudes and opinions.

As the old saying goes; you don't have to be able to outrun the bear. You just have to be able to outrun the other people being chased by the bear.
In context, regardless of how likely it is that a kid is going to end up in trouble as a result of the way they dress or the attitudes they've adopted, anything which reduces that risk might mean that it's less likely that it'll be your kid that gets involved in that sort of stuff.
Hard to say whether that attitude has any merit or not but you can't blame parents for thinking that way and, frankly, I'd rather be considered a prudish parent of an unmolested child than risk becoming the permissive parent of a rape victim.



I agree mostly with what you are saying, but, I can understand if Little Mix decided to say, FU ISIS, and dress how they normally do.
User avatar
Frankly
 
Posts: 1420
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 1:23 am

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby NastyNickers » Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:50 pm

Si_Crewe wrote:
Guest wrote:He's not the only one being a prude or Victorian though, many have tried to tell posters why those young women should be allowed to wear. and it's ironic that many posters basically want women who look ' too sexy' to cover up.... A bit like those fucking terrorists do. Perhaps hijabs and burkas would be better for them m

Even posters like Hobbit Feet or Blue eyes Mrs P are acting like these women can't wear what ever the hell they want without being shamed because.. won't somebody think of the children. If their kids are twerking or playing up like she says then maybe look first at their own bad parenting or weird attitudes rather than trying to shift the blame onto the outfits worn by some girl band. Just a thought.


Bit of a contradiction, isn't it?

One minute you're saying "Kids should be allowed to wear whatever the hell they like" and then you're saying "if kids start 'playing up' it's cos of bad parenting".

I seem to recall somebody in that thread said something along the lines of "the world is being threatened by terrorism and people are losing their shit over how kids dress?!!!!"
Trouble is that we're also living in a world where pedophilia, grooming and rape-gangs are a thing too so it's hardly surprising if parents aren't keen on the idea of sexualising their kids, much less exposing them to overly permissive attitudes and opinions.

As the old saying goes; you don't have to be able to outrun the bear. You just have to be able to outrun the other people being chased by the bear.
In context, regardless of how likely it is that a kid is going to end up in trouble as a result of the way they dress or the attitudes they've adopted, anything which reduces that risk might mean that it's less likely that it'll be your kid that gets involved in that sort of stuff.
Hard to say whether that attitude has any merit or not but you can't blame parents for thinking that way and, frankly, I'd rather be considered a prudish parent of an unmolested child than risk becoming the permissive parent of a rape victim.


I don't think the issue is with how kids are dressing, but how the girl group is dressing.

Would an over sexualised kid really be more attractive to a paedohile? Surely just the fact it's a child is enough? I just can't imagine it would make much of a difference as far as risk is concerned. Presuming the child has no other risk factors, such as being related to the paedophile, or vulnerable to grooming from family circumstance, it'll be a random kidnap like/dragged into a bush situation surely? And that would be more down to opportunity than the way the kid is dressed.
User avatar
NastyNickers
 
Posts: 1139
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 1:06 am

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Mrs P not logged I » Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:59 pm

Guest wrote:
guest wrote:So.....mushymanrob in the "sex shaming" thread is an interesting one. Is this the same guy who was very proud of shagging a 16 year old schoolgirl when he was 40 odd (and working at her school) and only has eyes for the lithe, slim figures of girls young enough to be his daughters? Cause he seems to have come across all prude and Victorian about Little Mix and their leotards. He's worried about their young teenage fanbase...... :ooer:


He's not the only one being a prude or Victorian though, many have tried to tell posters why those young women should be allowed to wear. and it's ironic that many posters basically want women who look ' too sexy' to cover up.... A bit like those fucking terrorists do. Perhaps hijabs and burkas would be better for them m

Even posters like Hobbit Feet or Blue eyes Mrs P are acting like these women can't wear what ever the hell they want without being shamed because.. won't somebody think of the children. If their kids are twerking or playing up like she says then maybe look first at their own bad parenting or weird attitudes rather than trying to shift the blame onto the outfits worn by some girl band. Just a thought.


Could you quote where I said that? I was speculating on why people might have complained. I actually said I liked LM and didn't care what they wore.
User avatar
Mrs P not logged I
 

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:00 pm

Si_Crewe wrote:
Guest wrote:He's not the only one being a prude or Victorian though, many have tried to tell posters why those young women should be allowed to wear. and it's ironic that many posters basically want women who look ' too sexy' to cover up.... A bit like those fucking terrorists do. Perhaps hijabs and burkas would be better for them m

Even posters like Hobbit Feet or Blue eyes Mrs P are acting like these women can't wear what ever the hell they want without being shamed because.. won't somebody think of the children. If their kids are twerking or playing up like she says then maybe look first at their own bad parenting or weird attitudes rather than trying to shift the blame onto the outfits worn by some girl band. Just a thought.


Bit of a contradiction, isn't it?

One minute you're saying "Kids should be allowed to wear whatever the hell they like" and then you're saying "if kids start 'playing up' it's cos of bad parenting".

I seem to recall somebody in that thread said something along the lines of "the world is being threatened by terrorism and people are losing their shit over how kids dress?!!!!"
Trouble is that we're also living in a world where pedophilia, grooming and rape-gangs are a thing too so it's hardly surprising if parents aren't keen on the idea of sexualising their kids, much less exposing them to overly permissive attitudes and opinions.

As the old saying goes; you don't have to be able to outrun the bear. You just have to be able to outrun the other people being chased by the bear.
In context, regardless of how likely it is that a kid is going to end up in trouble as a result of the way they dress or the attitudes they've adopted, anything which reduces that risk might mean that it's less likely that it'll be your kid that gets involved in that sort of stuff.
Hard to say whether that attitude has any merit or not but you can't blame parents for thinking that way and, frankly, I'd rather be considered a prudish parent of an unmolested child than risk becoming the permissive parent of a rape victim.


You're getting things mixed up. No one at all is saying kids should wear whatever they want (that's down to the parents not pop stars) but when posters like Hobbit Feet try and tell grown women what to wear or what is appropriate they become part of the problem. Wasn't she the one who raged about companies having a policy about women wearing heels calling it misogyny and yet here she is doing a similar thing telling women to cover up because of... her kids. Full of contradictions that one and attitudes like hers only add to sleazy old men like Mushy or prudes like Mrs Blue Eyes whatsit thinking a bit of flesh shown must mean they are hookers or strippers. Depressing reading.
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Mrs P not logged in » Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:07 pm

Guest wrote:
Si_Crewe wrote:
Guest wrote:He's not the only one being a prude or Victorian though, many have tried to tell posters why those young women should be allowed to wear. and it's ironic that many posters basically want women who look ' too sexy' to cover up.... A bit like those fucking terrorists do. Perhaps hijabs and burkas would be better for them m

Even posters like Hobbit Feet or Blue eyes Mrs P are acting like these women can't wear what ever the hell they want without being shamed because.. won't somebody think of the children. If their kids are twerking or playing up like she says then maybe look first at their own bad parenting or weird attitudes rather than trying to shift the blame onto the outfits worn by some girl band. Just a thought.


Bit of a contradiction, isn't it?

One minute you're saying "Kids should be allowed to wear whatever the hell they like" and then you're saying "if kids start 'playing up' it's cos of bad parenting".

I seem to recall somebody in that thread said something along the lines of "the world is being threatened by terrorism and people are losing their shit over how kids dress?!!!!"
Trouble is that we're also living in a world where pedophilia, grooming and rape-gangs are a thing too so it's hardly surprising if parents aren't keen on the idea of sexualising their kids, much less exposing them to overly permissive attitudes and opinions.

As the old saying goes; you don't have to be able to outrun the bear. You just have to be able to outrun the other people being chased by the bear.
In context, regardless of how likely it is that a kid is going to end up in trouble as a result of the way they dress or the attitudes they've adopted, anything which reduces that risk might mean that it's less likely that it'll be your kid that gets involved in that sort of stuff.
Hard to say whether that attitude has any merit or not but you can't blame parents for thinking that way and, frankly, I'd rather be considered a prudish parent of an unmolested child than risk becoming the permissive parent of a rape victim.


You're getting things mixed up. No one at all is saying kids should wear whatever they want (that's down to the parents not pop stars) but when posters like Hobbit Feet try and tell grown women what to wear or what is appropriate they become part of the problem. Wasn't she the one who raged about companies having a policy about women wearing heels calling it misogyny and yet here she is doing a similar thing telling women to cover up because of... her kids. Full of contradictions that one and attitudes like hers only add to sleazy old men like Mushy or prudes like Mrs Blue Eyes whatsit thinking a bit of flesh shown must mean they are hookers or strippers. Depressing reading.


Again, quote the specific post where you see me being a prude or stfu. Would you like me to quote where I said I don't care what they wear?
User avatar
Mrs P not logged in
 

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Si_Crewe » Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:09 pm

NastyNickers wrote:I don't think the issue is with how kids are dressing, but how the girl group is dressing.

Would an over sexualised kid really be more attractive to a paedohile? Surely just the fact it's a child is enough? I just can't imagine it would make much of a difference as far as risk is concerned. Presuming the child has no other risk factors, such as being related to the paedophile, or vulnerable to grooming from family circumstance, it'll be a random kidnap like/dragged into a bush situation surely? And that would be more down to opportunity than the way the kid is dressed.


Well, yeah.
As I said, I dunno how much merit there is in the idea, but I can understand why parents might think it's a good idea to avoid allowing their kids to adopt these fashions and attitudes.

Course, it's a bit hard to 2nd-guess what might be going on inside the heads of a sicko.
Personally, I tend to think questionable morals are the big problem, rather than fashions per-se.
If you've got kids watching some popular TV show (such as, perhaps, TOWIE?) where the cast spend their time getting pissed, getting off with each other and then being bitchy with each other then I suspect it's possible that kids will start to think that's a cool way to act.
The problem there, related to clothes, is that it doesn't have to be your kid who's got the skewed morals for them to be the one who gets into trouble.
If some teenage lad has been watching TOWIE and seen how the blokes go to clubs and getting off with girls in skimpy outfits then it's likely that's the sort of girl they're going to be looking out for in the real-world.
If your daughter is a perfectly sensible, straight-A student who also happens to be a Little Mix fan and, as a result, likes wearing skimpy outfits, she's probably going to be the one who catches the attention of our randy teen TOWIE fan.

It seems pretty reasonable, to me, that parents might not want their kids wearing anything which might elevate the risk of them getting noticed by randy teens or full-on sickos.
User avatar
Si_Crewe
 
Posts: 4499
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:33 am

Next

Return to The Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests