|
Post by fretslider on Feb 21, 2010 14:08:28 GMT
Children are not allowed to be children anymore. I am not sure they are necessarily sexualised but what we know as childish activities are no longer something parents encourage children to do. This is because there is a paedophile Muslim extremist on every corner waiting to fiddle with you before blowing you up. Well, that is the hysteria we have allowed the media (and politicians) to whip us into. If they avoid the paedo/terrorist then they arrive at school where they are tested within an inch of their life and then categorised for all eternity based on those results. If they survive the testing then they are bullied or become bullies but its alright because no one takes responsibility for their own actions any more and you are unlikely to get into trouble unless you are committing fraud. Therefore we are producing junior adults - with the weight of the world on their shoulders and responsibilities that even their parents struggle to cope with. Happy days! I'm still waiting for someone to pick up on what I said about menarche.....
|
|
|
Post by june on Feb 21, 2010 14:09:11 GMT
On a relaed note - who ever thought that producing children's products with the playboy bunny on was a good idea should be named and shamed!
|
|
|
Post by june on Feb 21, 2010 14:11:48 GMT
Also, so far in this discussion we seem to have exclusively focussed on little girls. What about little boys? Young lads who should be wearing short trousers and climbing trees are, instead, gelling up their hair and adopting the costumes of older men. I think there seems to be consensus that it's not a good thing for little girls, but surely the same applies to little boys who are being asked to adopt a construct of adult masculinity very early on in life. Its the responsibility of the parents in every case. The problem is the fallback in the age of menarche. It is not a constant Officially picking you up on the mention of menarche, sir. x
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 21, 2010 14:13:59 GMT
Its the responsibility of the parents in every case. The problem is the fallback in the age of menarche. It is not a constant Officially picking you up on the mention of menarche, sir. x And.........? x
|
|
|
Post by june on Feb 21, 2010 14:16:56 GMT
Officially picking you up on the mention of menarche, sir. x And.........? x I am not sure you have a point. x
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 21, 2010 14:22:00 GMT
I am not sure you have a point. x Ok Menarche.... In the mid 19th century it averaged 16 years, today it is around 11 and it is not uncommon for menarche to occur at 8. This makes problems for societies such as ours. Discuss.... X
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 21, 2010 14:24:05 GMT
And if I am in a situation where I am seeking help from another human being, I don't see that it would be relevant what gender they were (unless the help I was looking for was to get impregnated). Jean does No she doesn't - she said she didn't need help from a man she couldn't equally well get from a woman. Which is pretty much what riot said. (I forgot about the impregnating bit though.)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2010 14:30:43 GMT
I don't even like seeing girls in leggings unless they also wear a skirt or long tee. Tights leave nothing to the imagination yet no-one (apart from me) seems to see them as "sexual" garments, perhaps because they are not intended to be.
I also think they are incredibly ugly on just about anyone over three (and even then they d nothing to disguise the presence of the nappy). Ban them!
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 21, 2010 14:34:55 GMT
[Ok Menarche.... In the mid 19th century it averaged 16 years, today it is around 11 and it is not uncommon for menarche to occur at 8. This makes problems for societies such as ours. I know ithe average age of menarche is going down but not I think as fast as you say. Menarche at 8 is still very unusual. And why dio we assume girls will become sexually active as soon as they are fertile? Some always have, but the majority have not.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 21, 2010 14:35:07 GMT
(I forgot about the impregnating bit though.) You don't need a man for that these days.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 21, 2010 14:38:38 GMT
[Ok Menarche.... In the mid 19th century it averaged 16 years, today it is around 11 and it is not uncommon for menarche to occur at 8. This makes problems for societies such as ours. I know ithe average age of menarche is going down but not I think as fast as you say. Menarche at 8 is still very unusual. And why dio we assume girls will become sexually active as soon as they are fertile? Some always have, but the majority have not. The UK is not the only country in the world, although it is one with more hang-ups than most. No assumption is made, but nature is preparing them earlier. Now why would that be do you suppose?
|
|
|
Post by june on Feb 21, 2010 14:51:52 GMT
I'm not sure I'd rely on the facts - I doubt most women/girls in the 19th century would have told someone when it started. Plus many children would not have survived to see puberty - so you are not comparing like with like.
I presume though if the age is getting lower - good nutrition (and hence better chance of the mother and foetus surviving) is the main reason.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 21, 2010 14:58:39 GMT
"I'm not sure I'd rely on the facts "
Well what do you rely on, june?
Researchers are unclear as to why this trend is occurring, but what they do know is that it can be traced to the 19th Century when physicians first began to note the earlier menarche trend. Since that time girls have consistently begun menstruating at earlier and earlier ages; a trend that appears to be continuing in more recent generations. Some theorize that it is perhaps one of many early signs that certain as-yet-to-be-identified exposures of our progressively modern environment are adversely affecting human fertility, and as such the biologic capacity of men and women to reproduce.
|
|
|
Post by june on Feb 21, 2010 15:04:01 GMT
"I'm not sure I'd rely on the facts " Well what do you rely on, june? Researchers are unclear as to why this trend is occurring, but what they do know is that it can be traced to the 19th Century when physicians first began to note the earlier menarche trend. Since that time girls have consistently begun menstruating at earlier and earlier ages; a trend that appears to be continuing in more recent generations. Some theorize that it is perhaps one of many early signs that certain as-yet-to-be-identified exposures of our progressively modern environment are adversely affecting human fertility, and as such the biologic capacity of men and women to reproduce. Yea when I re read I thought that sentence was poor - perhaps I should have said 'facts', or facts without suitable interpretation, or facts based on incompatible evidence or maybe, the research looks dodgy. I'd go for better nutrition and the fact we are living longer as main causes. They must be linked.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 21, 2010 15:08:51 GMT
"I'm not sure I'd rely on the facts " Well what do you rely on, june? Researchers are unclear as to why this trend is occurring, but what they do know is that it can be traced to the 19th Century when physicians first began to note the earlier menarche trend. Since that time girls have consistently begun menstruating at earlier and earlier ages; a trend that appears to be continuing in more recent generations. Some theorize that it is perhaps one of many early signs that certain as-yet-to-be-identified exposures of our progressively modern environment are adversely affecting human fertility, and as such the biologic capacity of men and women to reproduce. Yea when I re read I thought that sentence was poor - perhaps I should have said 'facts', or facts without suitable interpretation, or facts based on incompatible evidence or maybe, the research looks dodgy. I'd go for better nutrition and the fact we are living longer as main causes. They must be linked. There are of course several compounds in popular use that mimic oestrogen.......
|
|
|
Post by june on Feb 21, 2010 15:11:23 GMT
Yea when I re read I thought that sentence was poor - perhaps I should have said 'facts', or facts without suitable interpretation, or facts based on incompatible evidence or maybe, the research looks dodgy. I'd go for better nutrition and the fact we are living longer as main causes. They must be linked. There are of course several compounds in popular use that mimic oestrogen....... I also read that in the west our increased consumption of Soya is messing with reproductive systems - as we are not used to it. Could all be mumbo jumbo as we have quite a high pregnancy rate.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 21, 2010 15:12:51 GMT
...nature is preparing them earlier. Now why would that be do you suppose? Unless you regard 'nature' as capable of acting purposefully and with forethough, and in a way that ought to determine how we behave, I'd say it was a pointless question. I've never been a great fan of any sort of biological determinism.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 21, 2010 15:16:00 GMT
...nature is preparing them earlier. Now why would that be do you suppose? Unless you regard 'nature' as capable of acting purposefully and with forethough, and in a way that ought to determine how we behave, I'd say it was a pointless question. I've never been a great fan of any sort of biological determinism. Are you denying evolution? Just because we cannot fathom what the reasons might be it usually comes down to an advantage of one kind or another. I wouldn't call it in any way deterministic.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 21, 2010 15:20:17 GMT
There are of course several compounds in popular use that mimic oestrogen....... I also read that in the west our increased consumption of Soya is messing with reproductive systems - as we are not used to it. Could all be mumbo jumbo as we have quite a high pregnancy rate. Soya? Yuk, no thanks. I'll have a nice rare T-Bone, though.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 21, 2010 15:23:24 GMT
I don't even like seeing girls in leggings unless they also wear a skirt or long tee. Tights leave nothing to the imagination yet no-one (apart from me) seems to see them as "sexual" garments, perhaps because they are not intended to be. I also think they are incredibly ugly on just about anyone over three (and even then they d nothing to disguise the presence of the nappy). Ban them! agree..leggings/tights are soooo ugly..most women just do not have the legs....who decides these fashions..more to the point why do women fall for these fashions..which do nothing for them ..must be the snigger value although last but one girl friend of grandson was a tall girl with a beautiful figure and she wore leggings with a sort of short dress over the top and she looked a million.... so perhaps its who wears rather than what is worn
|
|