DS and DTV Part 59

Big Threads

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:18 pm

Mrs P not logged I wrote:
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.


Sorry and please accept my sincere apologies. Mistaken identity. A mix up of names. :shame: It was Mrs Reluctant not you who said they looked like strippers as if that's somehow ok or better than prostitute. Again, sorry.
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Si_Crewe » Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:19 pm

Guest wrote:You're getting things mixed up. No one at all is saying kids should wear whatever they want....


I suppose I see your point.

I guess the problem is that when somebody's a public figure who's main audience is children, it's kind of hard to separate what they have a right to do as an adult and the responsibility they have as role-models for their audience.
User avatar
Si_Crewe
 
Posts: 4499
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:33 am

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby HobbitFeet » Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:21 pm

Mrs P not logged I 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.


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.



I didn't say it either, but who cares - people can read the thread if they want, and are able to follow a conversation trail, and those that can't are welcome to think what they want
I think their general image is out of keeping with their target audience, but the same could be said for lots of 'pop' groups

if people are going to bitch they will find something to bitch about, that's about it really


wait till your first school disco

parents get the pleasure of sitting and watching their primary age children emulating their idols - it can be amusing if you have that sort of humour, and I have to say that the sight of 6/7 year olds singing 'sex on fire' will stay with me forever

in seriousness they can't avoid these things, if you stop them watching/listening you can guarantee there is always some child who knows all the 'dirty' moves so they copy them instead - you can't win

I'm no prude but I do think 'pop' acts that target the pre and young teen market should consider the nature of their acts a little more carefully

and yeah uncomfortable is exactly the right word, it doesn't outrage me, but nor does it sit right



so shoot me.......
User avatar
HobbitFeet
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3423
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:29 pm

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:25 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.


They're just jellus frumps
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Mrs P not logged in » Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:31 pm

HobbitFeet wrote:
Mrs P not logged I 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.


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.



I didn't say it either, but who cares - people can read the thread if they want, and are able to follow a conversation trail, and those that can't are welcome to think what they want
I think their general image is out of keeping with their target audience, but the same could be said for lots of 'pop' groups

if people are going to bitch they will find something to bitch about, that's about it really


so shoot me.......


It would be better if people were a bit more accurate with what they are claiming posters are saying though. Otherwise we might as well all just make up random shit and attribute it to whichever poster we dislike most. I can't begin to imagine why I got lumped in with mushymanrob. My opinion in that thread is miles away from what he's posted.
User avatar
Mrs P not logged in
 

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:33 pm

NastyNickers 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.


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.


agree. What a strange way he looks at it. The notion that paedos go for sexy outfits and not the fact that's it's a damn kid is what the problem is. parents need to take responsibility for what young kids wear, rather than taking out their inadequacies on girl bands or pop stars.

People like these who try and make out that women wearing sexy outfits should cover up are the ones with the problem. Boy bands throughout the ages have relied on being heavily sexualised towards young girls and yet you never here or see the same prudes campaigning against them. Just towards the women. It's like going back in time.
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby NastyNickers » Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:38 pm

Si_Crewe wrote:
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.



I dunno. My two boppers are only young (5 and 2) so it's not really something I've had to actually implement, yet. I see the point, but its just too similar to the whole "don't wear skimpy clothes because rape" argument. And it's something I don't really agree with, but I can understand.
I plan to just teach mine what clothes are appropriate in the right situation, and help them to make the right decision. Similar to my own upbringing.

But having said all that. I don't even think kids want to wear what these pop stars wear on stage. As a youngster, I went from Britney Spears and the likes, to hardcore dance. And yet I spent the majority of my time in Rockports, jeans and a Parker because that's what everyone else my age was wearing. We'd imitate stars, yes, but never full on concert clothes. Usually the shit they'd wear that the high street was copying, or bits of outfits, like the knee high boots, or the crop top.

Pop stars have been stripping off since forever. I don't know why the fuss now.
User avatar
NastyNickers
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:06 am

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby NastyNickers » Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:45 pm

Yeah, mushrmanrob is a bellend. It's pretty hilarious he's trying to dictate what women wear whilst also pretending to side with 'women libs'.

- yeah removing that last bit. Too much even for me.
User avatar
NastyNickers
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:06 am

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby MISAWA » Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:58 pm

Puzzler wrote:Just want to thank you Nastynickers for linking that vile thread, I'll remember it next time some trolling guest says James frederick is harmless. It's always nice to see the so called tolerant lefties on there expose themselves as the despicable pieces of jihadi supporting shit they really are - and let's make no mistake, they HATE me and call me racist for the simple reason that I want known jihadis and their supporters deported/disappeared/interned. No one forces them to read here, if they hadn't started this shit in the first place by labelling me racist for opposing islamic extremism, I would never have slagged any of them off. That faux innocent act from annette is just sickening, THEY STARTED ALL THIS. Even when I went back on DS, it was that lot who started mass trolling my threads for daring to speak on subjects that are verboten to them. At the end of the day, they're a bunch of spineless cunts who don't have any solution to the terror problem, but would rather sit picking holes in others ideas of how to prevent it. Sjwales is one of the worst for that, he makes my fucking skin crawl :shake head:


Awwww. Poor snowflake game boy got bullied by all those dog piling lefty liberals. You poor wee thing.

And you did nothing to deserve any of those views opposing you.
User avatar
MISAWA
 

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Foxy » Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:00 pm

NastyNickers wrote:
Si_Crewe wrote:
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.



I dunno. My two boppers are only young (5 and 2) so it's not really something I've had to actually implement, yet. I see the point, but its just too similar to the whole "don't wear skimpy clothes because rape" argument. And it's something I don't really agree with, but I can understand.
I plan to just teach mine what clothes are appropriate in the right situation, and help them to make the right decision. Similar to my own upbringing.

But having said all that. I don't even think kids want to wear what these pop stars wear on stage. As a youngster, I went from Britney Spears and the likes, to hardcore dance. And yet I spent the majority of my time in Rockports, jeans and a Parker because that's what everyone else my age was wearing. We'd imitate stars, yes, but never full on concert clothes. Usually the shit they'd wear that the high street was copying, or bits of outfits, like the knee high boots, or the crop top.

Pop stars have been stripping off since forever. I don't know why the fuss now.


I remember my daughter when she was younger wanting 'sexy' underwear, like a bra top and skimpy knickers. She was about 6 or 7 at the time. I was horrified that they even made it her size. I'm probably old-fashioned but children don't seem to stay kids for long now. As for these pop stars who perform to a target audience of young teens dressed in a sexualised manner, I don't like it. Someone earlier in this thread described it as freedom to dress how they want, and compared it to the strict rules of Islam where woman have to wear the burka. I imagine this 'dress code' is imposed on them almost as strictly as covering up is imposed on Muslim women. They probably don't have much of a choice.
User avatar
Foxy
 
Posts: 568
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 6:14 pm

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby guest » Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:52 pm

Is this really the place to be discussing women's underwear?
User avatar
guest
 

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby NastyNickers » Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:14 pm

Foxy wrote:
I remember my daughter when she was younger wanting 'sexy' underwear, like a bra top and skimpy knickers. She was about 6 or 7 at the time. I was horrified that they even made it her size. I'm probably old-fashioned but children don't seem to stay kids for long now. As for these pop stars who perform to a target audience of young teens dressed in a sexualised manner, I don't like it. Someone earlier in this thread described it as freedom to dress how they want, and compared it to the strict rules of Islam where woman have to wear the burka. I imagine this 'dress code' is imposed on them almost as strictly as covering up is imposed on Muslim women. They probably don't have much of a choice.


I have never seen what I'd consider to be skimpy underwear for kids that young. Just bog standard cotton. I don't necessarily think that children are growing older quicker, if anything I think it's longer now with them having to stay in school to 18 and such.

I don't think it's any different now as to when I was 10, in regards to what the pop stars are wearing. And I don't think Little Mix were over 'sext' in their clothing choice either.
User avatar
NastyNickers
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:06 am

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Foxy » Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:26 pm

NastyNickers wrote:
Foxy wrote:
I remember my daughter when she was younger wanting 'sexy' underwear, like a bra top and skimpy knickers. She was about 6 or 7 at the time. I was horrified that they even made it her size. I'm probably old-fashioned but children don't seem to stay kids for long now. As for these pop stars who perform to a target audience of young teens dressed in a sexualised manner, I don't like it. Someone earlier in this thread described it as freedom to dress how they want, and compared it to the strict rules of Islam where woman have to wear the burka. I imagine this 'dress code' is imposed on them almost as strictly as covering up is imposed on Muslim women. They probably don't have much of a choice.


I have never seen what I'd consider to be skimpy underwear for kids that young. Just bog standard cotton. I don't necessarily think that children are growing older quicker, if anything I think it's longer now with them having to stay in school to 18 and such.

I don't think it's any different now as to when I was 10, in regards to what the pop stars are wearing. And I don't think Little Mix were over 'sext' in their clothing choice either.


My daughter is 19 now, so I'm talking about 12 years ago. This was it 'Little Miss Naughty', apparently banned now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2887483.stm
User avatar
Foxy
 
Posts: 568
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 6:14 pm

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Vam » Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:33 pm

Mushymanrob discussing women's/kids' fashion is rather disturbing in itself, tbh.
User avatar
Vam
 
Posts: 13198
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:57 am

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Odessa Steps » Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:36 pm

Foxy wrote:
NastyNickers wrote:
Foxy wrote:
I remember my daughter when she was younger wanting 'sexy' underwear, like a bra top and skimpy knickers. She was about 6 or 7 at the time. I was horrified that they even made it her size. I'm probably old-fashioned but children don't seem to stay kids for long now. As for these pop stars who perform to a target audience of young teens dressed in a sexualised manner, I don't like it. Someone earlier in this thread described it as freedom to dress how they want, and compared it to the strict rules of Islam where woman have to wear the burka. I imagine this 'dress code' is imposed on them almost as strictly as covering up is imposed on Muslim women. They probably don't have much of a choice.


I have never seen what I'd consider to be skimpy underwear for kids that young. Just bog standard cotton. I don't necessarily think that children are growing older quicker, if anything I think it's longer now with them having to stay in school to 18 and such.

I don't think it's any different now as to when I was 10, in regards to what the pop stars are wearing. And I don't think Little Mix were over 'sext' in their clothing choice either.


My daughter is 19 now, so I'm talking about 12 years ago. This was it 'Little Miss Naughty', apparently banned now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2887483.stm


Yeah that was creepy.
User avatar
Odessa Steps
 
Posts: 3404
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:53 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest