|
Post by mouse on Feb 20, 2010 9:41:41 GMT
Conservatives will halt 'commercialisation and sexualisation' of children David Cameron has said the “excessive commercialisation and sexualisation” of children would be halted under a Conservative government.
Outlining a set of measures, including a website for parents to share concerns over sexually inappropriate products, the Tory leader said that youngsters were under pressure to grow up too quickly.
He promised that parents would be empowered to use social pressure to force manufacturers to stop targeting their children with products such as "padded bras and Lolita beds."
"I think that will help parents feel 'I am not alone in this, I am not being left on my own to bring up my children properly, other people are helping me'," Mr Cameron said.
Mr Cameron said that he was trying to limit the amount of time that his six-year-old daughter Nancy listened to songs by Lily Allen, the pop star, due to the sexual content of some of her lyrics.
The Conservative leader told GMTV: "We all know as parents ... that you do your best as parents but there is a lot of pester power going on.
"What we are saying is that you can't cut children off from the commercial world, of course you can't, but we should be able to help parents more in terms of trying to make sure that our children get a childhood and that they are not subject to unnecessary and inappropriate commercialisation and sexualisation too young."
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 20, 2010 9:44:33 GMT
FORGET the politics and dwell on the sexulisation of children
i really dont like the way some of our children are dressed...to sexual by far..does any one agree..
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 20, 2010 10:17:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 20, 2010 11:08:41 GMT
FORGET the politics and dwell on the sexulisation of children i really dont like the way some of our children are dressed...to sexual by far..does any one agree.. hell, NO rational person would disagree. 13 year olds have NO right to dress like twenty year olds. end of story
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 20, 2010 11:23:37 GMT
my young grandaughter is coming to spend a few days and we will be doing our usual shopping trip...it gets more and more difficult to find a compromise between what she wants and what is reasonable for a child of eight....luckily she is french and they are not as far down the road of inapropriate clothing as the uk....on the other hand when she see,s whats on offer over here she naturally wants what she see,s...and of course what she see,s other girls her age wearing all very difficult
it starts long before they are 13 jumbo...
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Feb 20, 2010 12:34:17 GMT
Indeed. I am convinced it goes along with the nauseating sea of pink that now passes for small girls' clothes. Pink = pretty. Pink = fluffy. Pink = pleasing. Even in babygros. And starter bras for 8 year olds Subtle conditioning to be tweety and twirly and admired for being pretty rather than for what you can do. The sexualisation easily follows after this conditioning. Thankfully there are still plenty of girls with enough individuality to show a bit more imagination even though their choices are limited in shops. Pink was available, but no more than any other colours. I know us oldies always say it was better in our day....but I recall the choice of clothes my daughters had as babies, toddlers and under 10s - vibrant babygros and jumpers etc. in oranges, greens, blues, purples. Strong colours for strong girls with a positive attitude to life. Clothes to climb trees in, run fast in etc.......different attitude of mind. I know life has moved on and because of this early sexualisation and sexual openness early sex education is necessary. But it's a fact (about which I make no judgment as times were different) but we had none of this detailed sex education at school, yet teenage pregnancy at my school was so rare that the single case we had was the talk of the school. Yours Fuddy duddy firedancer ;D
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 20, 2010 14:51:03 GMT
my young grandaughter is coming to spend a few days and we will be doing our usual shopping trip...it gets more and more difficult to find a compromise between what she wants and what is reasonable for a child of eight....luckily she is french and they are not as far down the road of inapropriate clothing as the uk....on the other hand when she see,s whats on offer over here she naturally wants what she see,s...and of course what she see,s other girls her age wearing all very difficult it starts long before they are 13 jumbo... if that's true, there really is no excuse. younger than that don't even have any idea what they're doing, and even less what that kind of clothes is for, which is strictly to attract purient interest no one likes to see nice breasts more than i do, but i have NO inclination to look at even 16 year old tits, much less non existent ten year old's
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 20, 2010 14:54:15 GMT
Indeed. I am convinced it goes along with the nauseating sea of pink that now passes for small girls' clothes. Pink = pretty. Pink = fluffy. Pink = pleasing. Even in babygros. And starter bras for 8 year olds Subtle conditioning to be tweety and twirly and admired for being pretty rather than for what you can do. The sexualisation easily follows after this conditioning. Thankfully there are still plenty of girls with enough individuality to show a bit more imagination even though their choices are limited in shops. Pink was available, but no more than any other colours. I know us oldies always say it was better in our day....but I recall the choice of clothes my daughters had as babies, toddlers and under 10s - vibrant babygros and jumpers etc. in oranges, greens, blues, purples. Strong colours for strong girls with a positive attitude to life. Clothes to climb trees in, run fast in etc.......different attitude of mind. I know life has moved on and because of this early sexualisation and sexual openness early sex education is necessary. But it's a fact (about which I make no judgment as times were different) but we had none of this detailed sex education at school, yet teenage pregnancy at my school was so rare that the single case we had was the talk of the school. Yours Fuddy duddy firedancer ;D there's NOTHING fuddy duddy about being intelligent enough to know what is right. that's the whole problem. far too many are stupid enough to think preteen, or even teen, girls being sexy is okay. then, they whine about the kid spreading her legs and giving them a grandkid when she's fifteen, when it is SOLELY their fault for not forcing the kid to do what is right
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on Feb 20, 2010 15:02:41 GMT
FORGET the politics and dwell on the sexulisation of children i really dont like the way some of our children are dressed...to sexual by far..does any one agree.. I agree. I work for a children's clothing distributer and some of the shoes are starting to get higher heels and some of the shorts, well they are just plain Daisy Dukes for the elementary set. The shoes make me wonder what mother's would buy them and start ruining their child's feet so early in life.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Feb 20, 2010 15:11:08 GMT
It is simply exploitation for profit. Cameron is right. I hope the conservatives DO win; if only to get rid of this venal Labour government. And I hope that when in power, he will carry out his promise to tackle this indefensible exploitation of the very young!
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 20, 2010 21:06:16 GMT
I hope the conservatives DO win... And I hope that when in power, he will carry out his promise to tackle this indefensible exploitation of the very young! I wonder just how he's going to do that? Without of course restricting free choice...which would of course be indefensible (see PC thread). The only answer is for girls to begin to see that they are not of value only as sexual beings. That will need a resurgence of femnism.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 20, 2010 22:17:06 GMT
Outlining a set of measures, including a website for parents to share concerns over sexually inappropriate products, the Tory leader said that youngsters were under pressure to grow up too quickly. They are going to set up a website!!!!! My that will have them running to the hills!!!!! The people responsible for this will be cowering in their beds at night scared to death that their little nest eggs are going to be raided because the Tories are going to have a ‘website’ where parents can share their ‘concerns’. Are they going to shut down the media outlets that peddle this sick trade to pre teen girls? Are Sky and the Sun going to be banned from showing exploitive images of women being sold to young girls as desirable? Are they going to expected to stop showing pictures of lady Ga Ga or the latest Saturday’s music video to impressionable girls? Where does Cameron think seven year olds girls get the idea to ‘dress’ in bra tops and frilly knickers? Could it be that the dirty digger’s empire has something to do with it? Surely not! Surely all those channels that pump out suggestive videos are NOT intended to for children? Given how much Murdoch and Desmond have invested into Cameron, he will be in no illusion as to what his ‘website’ will be allowed to address. He promised that parents would be empowered to use social pressure to force manufacturers to stop targeting their children with products such as "padded bras and Lolita beds." How will they be empowered, exactly? "What we are saying is that you can't cut children off from the commercial world, of course you can't, LOL!!!!! David Cameron is going to stop advertisers advertising to young children. Yeah, right! Cameron has let the cat out of the bag. NOTHING will be done to stop the march of capitalism!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 20, 2010 22:20:31 GMT
LOL!!!!! David Cameron is going to stop advertisers advertising to young children. Yeah, right! Cameron has let the cat out of the bag. NOTHING will be done to stop the march of capitalism!!!!!! Brown, Cameron - what is the difference? Both are lying deceitful bastards. Blow parliament up - you know its the only way.....
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 21, 2010 9:58:57 GMT
[ to have a ‘website’ where parents can share their ‘concerns’. Are they going to shut down the media outlets that peddle this sick trade to pre teen girls? Where does Cameron think seven year olds girls get the idea to ‘dress’ in bra tops and frilly knickers? have you any children random a website is not a bad idea..it will give some indication of views..although of course not the views of those who do indulge their children..the worst possible types..and if any one questions them they get all huffy..mind you i guess they are not very bright or they wouldnt be presenting their kids as a pedos dream. kids should not look like tarts...or hookers...it doesnt stop at bra tops and frilly knickers..the make up..the earings...the tight tops and boots and shorts cameron knows where kids get these ideas frrom he is a father..but parents could stop buying the games and magazines and nothing looks worse than these pagent kids with the make up...the ultimate travesty
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 21, 2010 10:01:31 GMT
nothing fuddy duddy about wanting children to be children...rather than an advert for a cheap porn movie
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 21, 2010 10:10:10 GMT
[ The only answer is for girls to begin to see that they are not of value only as sexual beings. That will need a resurgence of femnism. no they will need parents with half a brain to teach them to value them selves ....lets be honest the girls on the pull in city centres etc are NOT even valued as sexual beings...just a convienient orrifice that keeps reasonable still ...and sir moves on to the next...yuk thank god not all girls and young women have the same attitude
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 21, 2010 11:01:16 GMT
That will need a resurgence of femnism. no they will need parents with half a brain to teach them to value them selves .... Feminism is for mothers too! The tragedy is they don't know it. (Though there are those who would argue that they are just exercising sexual autonomy in defiance of their prudish elders, who only try to stop them because they're jealous.)
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 21, 2010 11:11:46 GMT
[ (Though there are those who would argue that they are just exercising sexual autonomy in defiance of their prudish elders, who only try to stop them because they're jealous.) have to say any one who is jealous of a drunken groping on a hard pavement..against a wall or in the loo...is very welcome to be jealous....to their exceedingly low standards and limmited sexual expectations... sex like a good meal is to be enjoyed savoured prefferably in pleasantly and relaxed surroundings ...scratching an itch now an then doesnt hurt...but not if it makes you throw up afterwards.. lol.. on the other hand..when used to a cheap takeaway i guess they dont know any better and expectations are low... all very sad they hold them selves and others so cheaply..the boys as well as the girls
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 21, 2010 11:19:56 GMT
[ (Though there are those who would argue that they are just exercising sexual autonomy in defiance of their prudish elders, who only try to stop them because they're jealous.) have to say any one who is jealous of a drunken groping on a hard pavement..against a wall or in the loo...is very welcome to be jealous....to their exceedingly low standards and limmited sexual expectations... sex like a good meal is to be enjoyed savoured prefferably in pleasantly and relaxed surroundings ...scratching an itch now an then doesnt hurt...but not if it makes you throw up afterwards.. lol.. on the other hand..when used to a cheap takeaway i guess they dont know any better and expectations are low... all very sad they hold them selves and others so cheaply..the boys as well as the girls I wonder how much of the blame for the ladette culture can be attributed to feminism. They seem to ape male behaviour in many ways, even if they dress in a relatively feminine way.
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Feb 21, 2010 12:07:54 GMT
Ah - wondered how long it would be before feminism reared its head.
Feminism - like Eve - a convenient scapegoat. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|