The sexualisation of young girls


Abercrombie & Fitch have just launched a range of padded bikinis for girls as young as young as eight. Seriously, wtf is wrong with people?

From The Daily Mail:

Parents’ fury as Abercrombie & Fitch unveils padded bikinis for girls as young as eight

Abercrombie & Fitch’s preppy style has made it a favourite with teens and tweens.

But the fashion chain was the subject of outrage today after it released a range of bikinis for eight to 14-year-olds with padded cups.

The Abercrombie Kids ‘Ashley push-up triangle’ top, which retails for $24.50, features thick padding in the cup to give the illusion of a larger chest size.

But psychologists today called the design ‘appalling’ and ‘dangerous’.

Speaking to FOX411, parenting expert Dr. Janet Rose said: ‘This is appalling. If a parent buys a padded bikini for an eight year old, children’s services should be called.

‘The sexualisation of teens is bad enough and now this trend is trickling down to our babies.’

She continued: ‘If we continue to try to make our children value “sexy”, I shudder to think what damage we are doing to their future self-concepts and adult values.

‘In the long run, I fear we are creating girls who will suffer from low self-esteem and all the issues that go along with that.’

Psychologist, Dr. Nancy Irwin, believes that the garments could encourage premature sexual promiscuity.

‘Wearing a padded bra at that age… is encouraging sexual precociousness, a dangerous muscle to flex for the girl as well as for peers and predators,’ she said.

Parenting blog Babble added: ‘The push up bra is, effectively, a sex tool, designed to push the breasts up and out, putting them front and center where they’re more accessible to the eye… How is this okay for a second-grader?’

‘Playing at sexy is an inevitable and important part of growing up. But there’s a difference between exploring these ideas on your own and having them sold to you in a children’s catalog.’

The nylon and spandex garment, which is a part of the Abercrombie Kids summer collection, features a striped design. It is sold separately from the matching bottoms, which retail for $19.50.

A range of thongs bearing the words ‘wink wink’ and ‘eye candy’ sold by the retailer for the same age group in 2002 sparked a similar debate, but Abrecrombie Kids refused to recall the line.

The company said at the time: ‘The underwear for young girls was created with the intent to be lighthearted and cute. Any misrepresentation of that is purely in the eye of the beholder.’

At least the first expert quoted, Dr Janet Rose, got it right, including calling Social Services on any parent who buys this crap for their young daughter. ETA: See also Linda Radfem’s response, and my later calmed down response on this.

But wtf is up with the psychologist Dr Nancy Irwin with the ‘sexual precociousness’ crap? That phrasing sounds like it has a lot of victim-blaming behind it. A phrase such as ‘premature sexualisation’ is far less loaded against the girl(s) in question.

And let’s say it straight up, it is paedophile bait.

Of course, A&F aren’t unique, just within the last few years in the UK we have had pole dancing exercise kits (withdrawn), Playboy-branded bedding (still being sold), Playboy-branded stationery for girls (still being sold), lacy lingerie and push-up bras for girls (withdrawn), and including Primark who have already done the push-up bra thing for girls (withdrawn).

Of course, all this sexy-sexiness is aimed only at girls, not boys. Grooming them to think of themselves as sexual objects, to root their main values in sexual attractiveness and availability. More pushing of the heterosexual agenda, which really goes to show that heterosexuality is not as ‘natural’ and conclusive as we are lead to believe.

57 thoughts on “The sexualisation of young girls

  1. Mary Sunshine

    It’s about *justifying* and *normalizing* the rape of little girls by males of all ages.

    “She wanted it”. “She looked older”. “She was a seductress”.

    Puke, puke, puke.

    Ever notice that mainstream het women never address the setting of little girls as rape bait? It’s always, oh, well, the psychological damage, oh, the self esteem, blah fucking blah.

    Like

    Reply
  2. joy

    “Playing at sexy is an inevitable and important part of growing up.”

    Maybe that’s what’s wrong with me — I never did “play at sexy”!

    Maybe that’s also because I’ve always loved women. Although many sources would say that explains everything (ie, why I don’t care about “sexy”, as well as what’s wrong with me!)

    Funny, I was just talking about outrage fatigue earlier. By which I mean, for the past month or so.

    Like

    Reply
  3. jilla

    Playing at sexy is an inevitable and important part of growing up.

    ##

    Yeh I must have missed the memo on this too. Unfortunately, in my life it was delivered to the pervs in my community, who thought it meant they should play sexy with MY little kid body.

    Hey. On related fronts, I have to see yet another gynae, because so much of me has been removed owing to previous cervical cancer that they can’t assess whether I’m dead yet with a regular pap, ultrasounds and prodding. I think they’re hoping I’ll cave and just say oh just take it all out.

    It takes cv 25 years to develop. I was diagnosed at 32. I’m a textbook case!

    Like

    Reply
  4. Selah

    Unfortunately, in my life it was delivered to the pervs in my community, who thought it meant they should play sexy with MY little kid body.

    me too 😦 How can anyone claim that “playing at sexy” is a “normal” (healthy?) thing for little girls, when they are clearly sexualized by society from such a young age? What I am asking is, how can you separate out whether this is something coming from within the girl as part of normal sexual development, and something in society they are responding to? I took a class on human sexuality once that talked about what made sex play healthy for children. It required that it be age-appropriate (no padded bras for children!) and that if it involves others, they must be the same age. So like two five year olds playing doctor or “mommy and daddy” were given as examples of okay sex play. But I’m uncomfortable with the idea of playing at sexy rather than just playing at sex. Sexy is about female bodies being appealing to men; sex is much more neutral than that. Children do have sexuality, which is something we are often very uncomfortable with talking about, but it should spring from within them, not be about appealing to the male gaze. Put that way, “playing at appealing to the male gaze” is the opposite of “inevitable and important.”

    As a psychotherapist I find it interesting that the psychiatrist so concerned about this is talking about grooming the girls to become promiscuous and vulnerable to predators. Now obviously I do agree the “rape bait” issue is a major concern, but I am also concerned that the mere act of purchasing this and encouraging its use by a young girl—of teaching her that she needs to be sexy, i.e. appeal to the male gaze—is itself sexual abuse. That is why CPS should be called, not just because it turns a little girl into rape-bait (which it does) but because that itself already harms her.

    Sexual abuse takes many forms, and sexualizing a young girl is one of those forms.

    Like

    Reply
  5. nelle4relle

    Hi, found this blog from another feminist website.

    On topic–
    This is sad:

    http://www.parenting.com/blogs/show-and-tell/alina-parentingcom/pole-dancing-tweens

    More and more each day , young girls are being sex-prepped for future men.
    Society sees nothing wrong with it for the most part. At least American Society. I don’t know how you guys are fairing -but I am sure you get the same crap we get.

    Really much of this I believe is geared towards predators who are into young girls, and het men who want their sons to have “hot girls” like he did-but wouldn’t dare allow his daughter to be the “hot girl who gets objectified”.

    And ugh at that poll-dancing for kids article you posted. Just more proof that there are people trying to prep young girls for the sex industry . Sexualize them early so that you know, working a pole might not seem so bad and since you already have the skill and know-how,why not?

    Like

    Reply
  6. nelle4relle

    ball_buster, I have seen that atrocity and I have never felt so enraged.
    These girls were clearly dressed in burlesque attire, and the only thing most commentators can say in defense of this is “Well MOST DANCE moves are sexual so why NOT!? Get YOUR minds out of the gutter!”. Why couldn’t they be in some hip-hop b-girl wear and did a dance to a song children can relate to? Why were there little girls at the end of a dance contest for teenagers and women anyway?

    Like

    Reply
  7. FAB Libber

    omfg BB, not only should the parents of the girls in the video be taken in by CS, but the entire audience whooping and cheering should be arrested too.

    Hiya Nelle, welcome.

    I am going into ‘grooming overload’ here at the moment, still in shock from that video that BB posted. I don’t even like those little girl beauty pagents where they get all made up to look like grown-ups.

    Selah, the childhood ‘sexuality’ thing is more just body difference curiousity, not sexuality itself. Sensitive guidance needs to be given in the area, not just to leave a bunch of five years to do whatever it is they want to do. ‘Sexuality’ is the adult projection onto the whole deal. There is middle ground between ‘wrong-dirty’ and ‘go for it’.

    Like

    Reply
  8. Selah

    Selah, the childhood ‘sexuality’ thing is more just body difference curiousity, not sexuality itself. Sensitive guidance needs to be given in the area, not just to leave a bunch of five years to do whatever it is they want to do. ‘Sexuality’ is the adult projection onto the whole deal. There is middle ground between ‘wrong-dirty’ and ‘go for it’.

    I think it depends on how you define sexuality. In this class we were learning about how not just infants but even fetuses in utero have been observed touching their genitals for pleasure. The point of the class was that humans are sexual beings, full stop—that there is no one point in our lives where we suddenly become “sexual” in a way we weren’t before. This definition isn’t exactly the same as mainstream’s definition of sexuality, though, and I am realizing this warrants some more feminist analysis before I keep spouting off about it 🙂

    I do agree that parents should sensitively and kindly be in dialogue with their children about bodies and sexuality in age-appropriate ways throughout their development.

    Like

    Reply
  9. FAB Libber

    TLS, it just proves that some people should not be put in charge of raising children. What stupid shit, dressing toddlers and babies up like dollies. Grow the fuck up already.

    Selah, in utero, the place is pretty cramped, so I think that is reading way too much into foetuses touching themselves. As for children, only a small percentage would figure it out. I can see where you are going with it, but that is ye olde hippy stuff, the free love hangover. If kids do discover touching themselves, then it still has to dealt with, either to make sure it does not become some sort of obsession, or that they do not get prematurely active with others.

    The point of the class was that humans are sexual beings, full stop—that there is no one point in our lives where we suddenly become “sexual” in a way we weren’t before.
    Yes there is. It is called puberty.
    I absolutely hate the phrase of “humans are sexual beings”. It is both from sex-pozzie and psychotherapist origins. The over-focus of sex and sexuality is primarily a lot of what is wrong in the world today.

    Just let kids be kids, climb trees, have fun, and learn stuff.
    Stop projecting adult stuff onto them. It’s creepy. [that was meant as a general comment, not specifically]

    Like

    Reply
  10. Selah

    No I really appreciate this. I took that class as a funfem, not a radfem. This is making me realize I had held onto some of that stuff unquestioningly, and I need to go back through the materials and look at this through a truly feminist lens. I had already been thinking about doing that with one of the textbooks in particular. There’ll probably a few blog posts in there!

    Like

    Reply
  11. FAB Libber

    Yeah, at the root of it, it is adult projection onto children.

    Most children really only discover touching themselves when puberty hits, and that is because “stuff is happening down there”, so their brain starts to notice something different about that part of their body.

    Only a tiny percentage of NON MOLESTED children have anything more than a passing interest in their ‘private parts’.

    I think you will find most of this adult projection of child sexuality probably has roots in Freud or some other dudely shrink. Could even be a dudely shrink that was a paedophile justifying his behaviour (to himself and the world).

    Like

    Reply
  12. ball buster

    What stupid shit, dressing toddlers and babies up like dollies. Grow the fuck up already.

    Yes, I think this is exactly it – that it’s ok to dress tiny girls like adult barbies, and “nobody gets hurt.”

    Nelle, when I spoke up about this, I was told my mind was dirty, too. WTF, right?

    Like

    Reply
  13. maggie

    @Nelle BB’s video link is enraging agreed + gazillion. Most 7 year old girls have poor coordination anyway and it must take hours of practice for them to achieve the ‘high standard’ in the video. It’s appalling that they are made to do this. Seven. And so many decades ahead of compliance to men’s sexual whims.

    Like

    Reply
  14. T. Laurel Sulfate, Snarkurchin

    (Sorry, I do know how to close the tags now, and will do so in future.)

    The fuck-me heels for babies just reminded me of something. My mom’s told me several times that when I was too young to walk, people often scolded her for not putting shoes on my feet anyway. I suspect this might have been at least in part a class thing (we lived in a Southern mill town), but I’ve never heard her mention anyone worrying about my brother going barefoot (or in socks/booties only) before he could walk. Funny that.

    Like

    Reply
  15. FAB Libber

    Putting shoes onto pre-walking babies is a bit stupid, it serves no purpose other than for adult projection.
    Socks to keep their feet warm, fine, but shoes? wtf?

    Like

    Reply
  16. T. Laurel Sulfate, Snarkurchin

    Of course it’s stupid. But she swears people would stop her in public and tell her to put shoes on that baby’s feet. I’ll ask, but I could swear she said they seemed to think it would keep them small and ladylike. This would have been in 1965 or -6.

    Like

    Reply
  17. nelle4relle

    ball_buster wrote:
    Nelle, when I spoke up about this, I was told my mind was dirty, too. WTF, right?

    WTF indeed. I guess sex poz has gotten so bad that they’re starting to (or continuing to) push their sexuality onto the children. It’s typical sexpos response to anything regarding sexuality. They’ll try to make it seem like there is something wrong with you if you dare point out anything that might be considered as harmful to our society. A lot of sex pos people see no problem with things like this.

    Like

    Reply
  18. jilla

    I really really really really really want us to find a new phrase to use for the porn-happy. They are NOT sex positive. No matter how it’s spelled.

    BB? FAB? Gallus? Sea? Anyone. You’re all so good with language.

    I absolutely refuse to call it “sex positive”, or them “sex pozzie”.

    Like

    Reply
  19. FAB Libber

    Well, I know that the root is from “sex positive”, although I never use it, and opt for “sex pozzie” only because it rhymes with “mozzie” which is slang for mosquito.

    Maybe they should be called “sex mozzies” anyway, LOL

    It then has the flow-on meaning of “putting the mozz on someone” (hex, curse etc).

    But you are right, most of their sick shit is anything but positive wrt sex.

    Like

    Reply
  20. maggie

    “They’ll try to make it seem like there is something wrong with you if you dare point out anything that might be considered as harmful to our society.”

    I hate that. That’s exactly what men do when they know they’re in the wrong. It’s always someone else’s fault, someone else is wrong. Women who engage in this are so enmeshed in the 3rd wave suck dicks feminism negative paradigm that they will do anything to deflect what they damn well know to be wrong. 3rd wave so lacks any sense of moral intelligence it grieves me. Profoundly.

    I therefore postulate, given that I’m in possession of a sound moral intelligence, that the equation is actually, sex positive = sex negative. Given this I thereby reclaim the term sex postive (but hereby decree that it shall be renamed as sexual intelligence), rightly, for all morally intelligent radical feminists. Sex negative = 3rd wave = moralism. The time has come to consign the last equation to the grave.

    New equation moral intelligence = sex positivism

    Like

    Reply
  21. rahelle

    “Only a tiny percentage of NON MOLESTED children have anything more than a passing interest in their ‘private parts’. ”

    I’m not sure I agree with this. I touched myself when was a young child, and I was never abused. At least two of my cousins (one male, one female; on different sides of my family) did too. There has never been any indication they were abused either, but I obviously cannot know that for certain, unfortunately.

    This might sound creepy, and I never mention it to people, because I know how easy it would be for some to purposefully misinterpret it and use it for their agendas, but here it goes. I watched a lot of TV as a kid, and scenes of a sexual nature would cause blood flow to the genitals, even at a young age. I was definitely not a sexual being in the sense that I wanted to DO anything sexual or have anything sexual done to me. I reacted to visuals of others, but I never thought of MYSELF in any sexual context until puberty.

    Like

    Reply
  22. rahelle

    Last time I objected to the sexualisation of children I was accused of being an ethnocentrist and a racist, since in several world cultures it is considered normal for young children to be considered sexual and to have sexual contact. I was told that, yes, the concept of childhood is real but the concept of sex is a social construct varying across different societies. And that apparently this makes padded bikinis and sexualised dancing for kids okay. Usually I’m quick in answering bs like that, but this rationalisation left me speechless. People will really do anything to try to rationalise and justify the harm that patriarchy does. (I’ve also, on a different occasion, been told that rape is a social construct varying across societies too, so obviously this is common go-to tactic for patriarchy-apologists).

    Like

    Reply
  23. FAB Libber

    Hi rahelle, have no idea how you got here to my not widely advertised blog, but anyway.

    To address your first point, the disagreement, I did say that it was “a tiny percentage” (ok, I could have said small percentage) that were the exception, so curious why you phrased it as some sort of disagreement? After all, I did not say ‘no children ever ever discover…’

    For the vast majority of non-molested children, there is “body curiousity” which includes a bit of exploration of their own parts, and if available, a bit of exploration of the opposite sex’s parts. It is generally along the lines of a ‘show and tell’ affair, but does not normally include active stimulation of parts, or each other’s parts.

    The small percentage of exceptions do discover (by accident) some pleasurable sensations of touching themselves. I doubt that it is exactly comparable to post-puberty sensations though. More self-touching discoveries are made during puberty, when ‘stuff is happening down there’.

    As for watching sexual scenes on TV, that was a bit irresponsible of your parents really. But, when I was a kid, the only ‘adult’ things on TV were pretty much Hayes Code scenes, so a bit of snogging and that was it, Doris Day and Rock Hudson were about as saucy as it got. And in B&W. LOL.

    Anyway, at the end of the day, sexual knowledge for children should be a gradual thing, or ‘age appropriate’ being the current buzz term. It is the job of parents to guide children gradually into things as and when they are ready. Guidance is the key.

    Like

    Reply
  24. ball buster

    Hi Jilla, thanks. 🙂 I agree, new term needed. I like Fab’s idea of mozzie, because men are mosquitoes and all this hypersexualism is required by them, for them.

    What’s fucked up about the mozzies is that masturbation is only kewl if you’re a dude. Masturbation for women isn’t nearly as encouraged as much as dick sucking (literally and figuratively) because the whole movement is based around the male orgasm. Masturbation is only accepted for women as long as men aren’t interested in her. The moment men get interested, she’s required to give it up and please them instead. “What do you need that for?” they ask. “you’ve got me!” But watch them when we try to take away their precious pr0n. 😉

    Also, I’ve found that it’s considered a compliment if their wife/girlfriend does something awesome in the bedroom to create that spanking material for them. She gets NOTHING OUT OF IT, yet she’s supposed to feel happy and satisfied. Yeah, how fucked up is that? We’re supposed to invest all our sexual pleasure in men.

    Anyway, I’m just kind of rambling here, not meaning to derail or anything like that. Just some thoughts about the mozzies and their spanking culture.

    Oh yes, and Rahelle is right. They will accuse feminists of being imperialists “shoving their western culture around” when promoting the rights of women; but then see no problem invading countries like Iraq or Afghanistan to “preserve Democracy.” See how that works? I fucking hate being a Yank sometimes.

    Like

    Reply
  25. FAB Libber

    She gets NOTHING OUT OF IT, yet she’s supposed to feel happy and satisfied.
    That is because female is seen either as ‘servant’ or ‘sexual servant’.
    I gather she is supposed to feel job satisfaction or something.

    Like

    Reply
  26. ball buster

    LOL@job satisfaction… good one!

    Yes indeedy they are blood suckers and parasites aren’t they? They give back nothing but disease and discomfort on any level they can. I’m thinking about putting a flyswatter swatting a mosquito on my sidebar. hmmmm

    Like

    Reply
  27. Nelle

    @maggie

    Indeed,maggie! Women know deep down in their hearts when something is wrong-but will not call it how they see it-but they would call it how men see it. Rather depressing but, what can you expect in a patriarchal society?

    I being in my 20s-find it hard to relate to and find other females who have similar views. Until I went hunting on the internet and stumbled upon some radfem blogs/articles/posts. Even in my own race, sexmozz stuff has been embedded in our culture-ironically pushing forth the stereotype that we are always sexually available as PoC women. Most 20-somethings in my opinion have been engaging in pop-feminist sexmozz stuff instead of looking deeper.

    @rahelle :

    People have even gone as far as to label others as a pedophile if you point out how damaging it is for children to be so overtly sexual. Point out the pedo-ness of something, you get accused of being one yourself-much like if you point out how racist something is, you’re one yourself for even being capable of identifying it. Typical deflective nonsense.

    And it’s just aggravating. You shouldn’t have to create a break-down of why children behaving in adult manners at a young age is harmful. It should be pretty fucking obvious.

    I believe in universal wrongs-such as just because it’s cultural, doesn’t mean that it’s right.

    Like

    Reply
  28. jilla

    HI bb I was actually thinking of you for this naming assignment. 🙂 But I didn’t want to embarrass you or put you on the spot.

    Hmmm. Well it’s the female mosquito that bites. She needs a blood meal to be fertile and reproduce. As usual, the male is just some useless drone.

    I’m still totally bummed out by FCMs latest posts, so I’ll go back to occasional lurking and blankly staring out the window.

    Like

    Reply
  29. FAB Libber

    Well it’s the female mosquito that bites.
    I wasn’t going to mention it, almost did, but the mozza thing fitted so well in other ways!

    Like

    Reply
  30. rahelle

    I phrased it as a disagreement because, based on what I observed in my childhood, I disagree. I just think it would be too much of a coincidence for me and two other members of my close family to have touched ourselves at an early age if it is indeed such a rare occurrence.

    About TV… yeah, I watched way too much, I agree. And I think it did have an effect (though the touching predates the TV watching). There wasn’t really a TV watershed or a rating system yet where I lived, so we all grew up watching all sorts of stuff. It helped make me a feminist at a very early age, but I’m sure it can go either way and it can definitely have an adverse effect. I don’t know, when I was growing up it was just taken as granted that kids would see all sorts of scenes on TV ( except extremely graphic violence, but it was considered the parents’ responsibility not TV stations’ to protect kids from that), so I’ve only recently started really thinking about how exposure media affects children’s mind and development, and what sort of limits/protections are necessary/appropriate.

    Like

    Reply
  31. FAB Libber

    I just think it would be too much of a coincidence for me and two other members of my close family to have touched ourselves at an early age if it is indeed such a rare occurrence.
    You are talking basically about an extended family group, bound to have similar environments. I would be more impressed if the examples were from unrelated families, and preferably in different towns/cities. Think in broader terms in other words.

    Like

    Reply
  32. rahelle

    Well, those cousins immediate families only know each other through me and my parents – they’ve only ever met several times at family functions. They grew up in different cities (actually one in a city, the other in a small rural community), in different types of families with very different parents, a different sibling situation, different socioeconomic backgrounds, one went to kindergarten, the other never did etc. Their environments were very different. They’re basically two random people whose only connection is me. And I, again, grew up in a family unit different to theirs. Only thing in common to all 3 of us is we grew up in the same country.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “think in broader terms”, since I can only give those examples I know of. I don’t usually go around asking children whether they touch themselves. I only know what I myself experienced/observed as a child.

    I don’t expect you to be impressed, I’m not even trying to prove anything. I’ve got nothing invested in this, I’m just sharing my experience and expressing disagreement. Not trying to change your mind. I agree that children are not just small-sized adults and the sexual impulses that I think are there are very different from adult sexuality, so my disagreement over this one detail makes no difference to my position on the sexualisation of children in society.

    Like

    Reply
  33. Pingback: Open-Thread..on a 1st blog entry!?What? « My Blog

  34. FAB Libber

    rahelle, certainly that sounds like a better, wider sample, so I partially concede. So my next question would be, what generation are you? My guess is under 30, perhaps closer to 20.

    Therein possibly lies the key, in an over-sexualised culture. Which does not disprove my point, that generally external (to the child) influences have an effect (eg CSA, meeja).

    The fact that you have taken this disagreement to a private blog among your friends is fairly suspicious.

    Like

    Reply
  35. Mary Sunshine

    Depends also on what you mean by “touched”. Toddlers from potty training on up have to touch themselves as a simple matter of toilet/loo-going. Both sexes. That they would otherwise not touch themselves doesn’t really make sense to me.

    Certainly in the 1940’s this was true. My toddler memories are actually pretty vivid. Kids touched and looked at themselves out of curiosity. And talked to each other about it. There was toddler-male sexual aggression toward toddler-females. I remember that too, and how I deal with it.

    Like

    Reply
  36. FAB Libber

    There was toddler-male sexual aggression toward toddler-females.
    I certainly remember toddler male aggression towards female toddlers, back in kindergarten – general aggression and dominance rather than sexualised.

    Like

    Reply
  37. FAB Libber

    That they would otherwise not touch themselves doesn’t really make sense to me.
    In the sense of a known sexual masturbation/stimulation.

    It is more likely in boys, because the equipment is ‘out there’ and accidental discovery is more likely. The clitoris is much harder to discover by accident.

    Kids explore their bodies from very young, not necessarily sexual. They discover ‘holes’ like ears and noses, and stick stuff up there. That is not sexual, that is body discovery. Investigating their ‘bits’ is not necessarily sexual, it is body curiousity. Sometimes out of the curiousity a pleasurable connection may be made by accident, but this is not exactly sexuality as such, as in knowing the why it happens and mental connection to other things (the adult concepts of sexuality).

    Like

    Reply
  38. rahelle

    Personally I don’t think the oversexualised culture is what caused me touching myself, but I’m 21. I’m Jane, btw, we’ve talked over at Noanodyne’s and probably other radfem blogs (I forgot yesterday to answer how I found your blog). I just had to choose a different name to register with WordPress so I could comment on your blog, since “Jane” was taken already. I’ll change it to something with “jane” in it, having a completely different one is confusing 🙂

    “The fact that you have taken this disagreement to a private blog among your friends is fairly suspicious.”

    Sorry, I have no idea what you’re talking about. What private blog? What friends?

    Like

    Reply
  39. FAB Libber

    Ok, I think I seem to have become confused about that other pingback just above.
    You can change your screen name in the My Account, Edit My Profile section. You will automatically go into mod for the first comment after you change it. Just a head’s up.

    My youngest neice just turned 21 just over a week ago, you are from the generation after in other words.

    Like

    Reply
  40. Pingback: Projection … and reversals | twanzphobic since forever

  41. Pingback: Let’s make her hawt, and lose the plot! | twanzphobic since forever

  42. rahelle

    Sorry, I never saw this reply till today. Glad to see that cleared up. Yeah, I know about the name, but I think I might stick with just Rahelle. There are a few other Janes about, and I don’t want a name that’s too long either.

    Btw, today I came across something that instantly reminded me of this post. A sickeningly perfect example of people projecting an adult sexuality onto a little girl and slut shaming her for it.

    http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/57841299.html

    99% of the comments are just vile, and show people have absolutely no problem slut-shaming an 8-year-old. Someone’s even outraged at how “provocatively” dressed she is.

    Like

    Reply
  43. Pingback: Sexualisation of infants | High Dudgeon

Leave a rilly rilly twanzphobic reply, go on, dares ya!

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s