DS and DTV Part 59

Big Threads

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Odessa Steps » Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:38 pm

Vam wrote:Mushymanrob discussing women's/kids' fashion is rather disturbing in itself, tbh.


Yeah, he is creepy.
User avatar
Odessa Steps
 
Posts: 3499
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:53 pm

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby NastyNickers » Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:48 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's ridiculous. I completely understand why they'd ban them.

I'm nearly 10 years older than your daughter. She's my sisters age though. I think I had it infinitely easier than that age group, just because of the lack of social media. Now that I would say can be extremely damaging.
User avatar
NastyNickers
 
Posts: 6510
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:06 am

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby NastyNickers » Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:50 pm

Odessa Steps wrote:
Vam wrote:Mushymanrob discussing women's/kids' fashion is rather disturbing in itself, tbh.


Yeah, he is creepy.


Me too. I was trying to word something about him (don't know if anyone caught it, edited it out after having second thoughts ), but I couldn't get it out without insinuating something I really don't feel comfortable insinuating. That in itself made me cringe.
User avatar
NastyNickers
 
Posts: 6510
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:06 am

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:04 pm

Mrs P not logged in wrote: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.


:thumbsup: By Jove, I think you've got it. Welcome to the thread. It's what they do.
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby guest » Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:11 pm

Vam wrote:Mushymanrob discussing women's/kids' fashion is rather disturbing in itself, tbh.


He is the arbiter of morality and not a weirdo in the least.

Pop stars in their mid 20s showing a bit of thigh and cleavage = wrong because it promotes sexuality to their young teenage fans.
Grown women wearing schoolgirl uniforms as fun dress up = immoral because it sexualizes schoolgirls.
Actually having sex with a barely legal schoolgirl when you are 40 and work in her school = AWWWRIGHT and if you don't like it you are just jealous of his hot young gf.

Dunno why he's going on about it so much. According to him he has no sex drive at all. :pukeup:
User avatar
guest
 

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby MrsP not logged in » Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:57 pm

Guest wrote:
Mrs P not logged in wrote: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.


:thumbsup: By Jove, I think you've got it. Welcome to the thread. It's what they do.


I'm gonna disagree with you on that one. For the most part, posters react to what gets posted and it's attributed to the right people. I don't mind at all if people want to have a go at something I've posted, but it should at least be based on what I said. That guest has since apologised so I've moved on.
User avatar
MrsP not logged in
 

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Vam » Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:58 pm

guest wrote:
Vam wrote:Mushymanrob discussing women's/kids' fashion is rather disturbing in itself, tbh.


He is the arbiter of morality and not a weirdo in the least.

Pop stars in their mid 20s showing a bit of thigh and cleavage = wrong because it promotes sexuality to their young teenage fans.
Grown women wearing schoolgirl uniforms as fun dress up = immoral because it sexualizes schoolgirls.
Actually having sex with a barely legal schoolgirl when you are 40 and work in her school = AWWWRIGHT and if you don't like it you are just jealous of his hot young gf.

Dunno why he's going on about it so much. According to him he has no sex drive at all. :pukeup:


Thanks for bringing that last bit to my attention! :ooer: :gigglesnshit:

I've sometimes wondered why a bloke in his mid to late forties (??) would come up with a saccharine, twee username like that. Given what he's openly posted about his teen girlfriend, it's not really a stretch to figure out, I guess.....and then my mind (bizarrely!) pictures a couch overflowing with cheap, garish, garage-bought stuffed toys and teddy bears, and a young voice calling out his username :ooer:

This guy has no business to be dispensing advice on women's fashion :gigglesnshit:
User avatar
Vam
 
Posts: 15457
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:57 am

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:03 pm

Guest wrote:
Mrs P not logged in wrote: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.


:thumbsup: By Jove, I think you've got it. Welcome to the thread. It's what they do.


Hi Gilbertoo. Happy to provide screenshots if it shuts you up once and for all.
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Si_Crewe » Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:04 pm

NastyNickers wrote: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.


I don't think people, as parents, should beat themselves up too much for not being as "liberal" or "open-minded" as they might want to be.

Don't all parents tell their kids not to talk to strangers or go into dark alleyways?

As adults, we have a good idea of the risks involved and we understand the potential consequences of any risks we take, as well as the likelihood of a thing happening.
That kind of critical-thinking is a fairly complex, confusing and ambiguous idea to get across to a kid, though, and you'd never be entirely sure whether they understood you properly (assuming you were actually confident that you were able to explain it all clearly to begin with).
So, instead we just tell kids that certain things are to be avoided in order to err on the side of caution.

I think there's a similar mentality at work with regard to parents who're worried about the sort of stuff various role-models get up to.
User avatar
Si_Crewe
 
Posts: 4585
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:33 am

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby jp761 » Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:12 pm

Vam wrote:
guest wrote:
Vam wrote:Mushymanrob discussing women's/kids' fashion is rather disturbing in itself, tbh.


He is the arbiter of morality and not a weirdo in the least.

Pop stars in their mid 20s showing a bit of thigh and cleavage = wrong because it promotes sexuality to their young teenage fans.
Grown women wearing schoolgirl uniforms as fun dress up = immoral because it sexualizes schoolgirls.
Actually having sex with a barely legal schoolgirl when you are 40 and work in her school = AWWWRIGHT and if you don't like it you are just jealous of his hot young gf.

Dunno why he's going on about it so much. According to him he has no sex drive at all. :pukeup:


Thanks for bringing that last bit to my attention! :ooer: :gigglesnshit:

I've sometimes wondered why a bloke in his mid to late forties (??) would come up with a saccharine, twee username like that. Given what he's openly posted about his teen girlfriend, it's not really a stretch to figure out, I guess.....and then my mind (bizarrely!) pictures a couch overflowing with cheap, garish, garage-bought stuffed toys and teddy bears, and a young voice calling out his username :ooer:

This guy has no business to be dispensing advice on women's fashion :gigglesnshit:
That's the crux of the issue he can't do 'attention'. :pmsl: Rather than talking crap about fashion and god knows what else, the GP should be his port of call. :laughing:
User avatar
jp761
 
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby jra » Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:10 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 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.


Children are definitely growing up faster than they used to and you can leave school at 16, but nowadays there seem to be certain conditions attached.
User avatar
jra
 
Posts: 11969
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:02 pm

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:14 pm

Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Mrs P not logged in wrote: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.


:thumbsup: By Jove, I think you've got it. Welcome to the thread. It's what they do.


Hi Gilbertoo. Happy to provide screenshots if it shuts you up once and for all.

:gigglesnshit: They also call you names of DS people they don't like. Gibertooo? Fucking spazzies lol
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby NastyNickers » Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:32 pm

jra 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 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.


Children are definitely growing up faster than they used to and you can leave school at 16, but nowadays there seem to be certain conditions attached.


Definitely? What are you measuring that on?

I personally think they are babied a lot more these days. Yes they are exposed to more via the internet and the like, and they behave like they are older, but I think the childlike lack of responsibility and immaturity extends much longer than it once did.

And anyway, go far enough back and you had young children working and having responsibility.

Edit to add: yeah there are conditions. I think it's either college for 2 years, an apprenticeship or 20hours work and training/education.
User avatar
NastyNickers
 
Posts: 6510
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:06 am

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby jra » Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:58 pm

Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Mrs P not logged in wrote: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.


:thumbsup: By Jove, I think you've got it. Welcome to the thread. It's what they do.


Hi Gilbertoo. Happy to provide screenshots if it shuts you up once and for all.


You provide proof it's Gilbertoo.
User avatar
jra
 
Posts: 11969
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:02 pm

Re: DS and DTV Part 58

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:00 pm

guest wrote:Is this really the place to be discussing women's underwear?


Well, it is the interspaz. Seems like the ideal place TBH. :leer:
User avatar
Guest
 

PreviousNext

Return to The Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest