The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Why do companies sell revealing clothes for young girls?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Blue_Mason
There is no excuse for it and those parents are weak minded and do not possess the skills to be respectable parents


Easy to say. less easy to do.

Original post by karmacrunch
So the parents are still the issue here. Why would you care if your clothes are 'fashionable'or not or if your child is 'left behind'? School is for learning and your parents should teach you that. If parents say more often no the companies would probably go bust.


Because no sane parent wants their child to be bullied.

And there will always be a company who'd ignore a moral stance in exchange for money.
Reply 21
Avatar for Clip
Clip
19
Original post by Autistic Merit
She can wear it as long as it leaves something to the imagination at least.


What does that even mean? You're blithering.

How can you tell people what they can and can't sell, if you can't even define what it is that offends you?
Original post by Autistic Merit
Common sense is all I can say on it really. I just can't understand why any parent would allow their Year 8 daughter to come in to school on non-uniform day in practically her underwear; and yes this is common in the school in which I teach!

And, no, the weather is no excuse.


'Girls are be permitted to wear skirts of an appropriate length at such a time in their life as common sense shall permit'.

What possible confusion could arise in the interpretation of that law?!
Original post by Drewski

Because no sane parent wants their child to be bullied.

And there will always be a company who'd ignore a moral stance in exchange for money.


Their parents should teach their children that bullies are everywhere but you have to rise above them. :redface:
I agree with the last bit. It is very annoying, why can't children be children anymore?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by karmacrunch
Their parents should teach their children that bullies are everywhere but you have to rise above them. :redface:
I agree with the last bit. It is very annoying, why can't children be children anymore?


Don't be dim. That's never going to happen. Prevention is always more sensible for people.

And again, don't be dim. It's hardly a new phenomenon, kids have been trying to be older than they are for as long as kids have existed.
Original post by Clip
What does that even mean? You're blithering.

How can you tell people what they can and can't sell, if you can't even define what it is that offends you?


It's very difficult to be specific about what is revealing and what is not. I would say minimum of knee length on shorts/skirts and no strapless tops but no doubt others will disagree with this.
Reply 26
Avatar for ApeMob
ApeMob
3
Ain't nobody gonna sell what don' nobody be buyin', playa :closedeyes: lol
Reply 27
Avatar for Clip
Clip
19
Original post by karmacrunch
Their parents should teach their children that bullies are everywhere but you have to rise above them. :redface:
I agree with the last bit. It is very annoying, why can't children be children anymore?


Posted from TSR Mobile


Children are more like children now, and also for much longer than at almost any time in the past.
Original post by Drewski
Don't be dim. That's never going to happen. Prevention is always more sensible for people.

And again, don't be dim. It's hardly a new phenomenon, kids have been trying to be older than they are for as long as kids have existed.


"Don't be dim, that's never going to happen"?<- Well my parents and a lot of my friend's parents did not fail there. You can only ever prevent bullying to some extent, you shouldn't have to.

Yeah but it isn't as bad as now. Go to a 21st century secondary and hear what some of the Year 7s say. :rolleyes:


Also, please refrain from calling me "dim".
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by karmacrunch

Erm... Butterfly? :lolwut:
Posted from TSR Mobile


Capitalism. :colonhash:


I don't mean that they should be having sex...
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Autistic Merit
It's very difficult to be specific about what is revealing and what is not. I would say minimum of knee length on shorts/skirts and no strapless tops but no doubt others will disagree with this.


Well if you want this to be illegal we're going to need some kind of parameters to go on, the law must be certain and all that.

If ignorance of the law is to be no excuse we need at least someone to have clue what the law actually is.
Original post by karmacrunch
"Don't be dim, that's never going to happen"?<- Well my parents and a lot of my friend's parents did not fail there. You can only ever prevent bullying to some extent, you shouldn't have to.

Yeah but it isn't as bad as now. Go to a 21st century secondary and hear what some of the Year 7s say. :rolleyes:


Up until very recently, I worked in one.

The discussions were categorically no different to the ones my peers had when I was a yr 7. Nor different to those overheard by my mother, who also worked in schools, some 25 years ago.

This generation is not special.
Reply 32
Avatar for Clip
Clip
19
Original post by Autistic Merit
It's very difficult to be specific about what is revealing and what is not. I would say minimum of knee length on shorts/skirts and no strapless tops but no doubt others will disagree with this.


Ok. So all types of sports skirts should be banned, along with just about every type of skirt that is sold for girls below the age of 7.

This would also indicate, would it not, that all shorts should also be banned as they are above knee length?

How about leggings? They're skin tight and show the curves of a grown woman. Should we ban all leggings for under 16s?

You sound like you're coming from one of those ultra-orthodox districts in Jerusalem where there are signs telling women to dress modestly with skirts below the knee and their elbows covered.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Capitalism. :colonhash:


I like capitalism, at least I prefer it to communism.
Also-"get them while they're young"
Seriously, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. :rolleyes:
Posted from TSR Mobile
Capitalism in unethical profiteering shocker

Original post by Autistic Merit
She can wear it as long as it leaves something to the imagination at least.


One would hope nobody would be imagining!!
Original post by Clip
Ok. So all types of sports skirts should be banned, along with just about every type of skirt that is sold for girls below the age of 7.

This would also indicate, would it not, that all shorts should also be banned as they are above knee length?

How about leggings? They're skin tight and show the curves of a grown woman. Should we ban all leggings for under 16s?

You sound like you're coming from one of those ultra-orthodox districts in Jerusalem where there are signs telling women to dress modestly with skirts below the knee and their elbows covered.


The bottom line is that we have an unacceptable situation in which Year 8 girls, say, are being allowed to go to school or around town dressed in bottoms that can only really be described as underwear.

I am not going far enough to debate specifics as I am too tired for a start. All I am saying is that surely something could be done to ensure that kids aren't going around wearing essentially less clothes than Tori Black?
I think it's allowed because to dictate what people can wear is then beginning to take their identity. People wear what they wear to express themselves, even now at the ages of 12 and13, if you were to limit what people could wear, would it then make it better just to put people in uniforms to make sure that younger people aren't showing to much flesh?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by scrotgrot
Capitalism in unethical profiteering shocker



One would hope nobody would be imagining!!


Ephebophiles will have a look.
Original post by kerrimw26
I think it's allowed because to dictate what people can wear is then beginning to take their identity. People wear what they wear to express themselves, even now at the ages of 12 and13, if you were to limit what people could wear, would it then make it better just to put people in uniforms to make sure that younger people aren't showing to much flesh?


Posted from TSR Mobile


I know that, in some cases, schools have sent students home because their clothing was too revealing. Is this unethical as it is challenging their identity?
supply and demand, and sloots gonna sloot so the demand is there

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you