Push-Up Bikinis for Kids

Off Topic
61

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
blah blah blah
[/quote]

hhmmm… perhaps in two parent homes men are doing more parenting, but… there isn’t so much of that anymore. Either there is divorce or the “baby mama” and “baby daddy” crap that I am so sick of hearing about.

I worked family law,… not a lot of daddy’s taking care in so many situations.

In regards to sexual freedom, … . I don’t care if it makes me a prude but I don’t want my young children to be engaging in that. Wait until they are 40yrs old just like me!

I was speaking with a friend of my late grandmother’s and she did say the 1920’s were much like this. Although she did say women got married or adopted out the babies back then.

Maybe things really are just cyclical and I am just not so happy with this cycle. And I don’t even know if it is unhappy, it is just such a disappointment for the kids.

Man I had so much fun just “petting” and fooling around but now it seems like kids go from “Hi my name is…” to sucking dick and getting fucked. Much like anyone’s first date these days.

Please tell me Pleasantville is real.

[/quote]

My comments about men was really just to remove the blame, as in “Men are just objectifying little girls so they dress them sexy” type of response. But you can see here and on other threads that many of the guys here take their role as parent very seriously.

I see your point about sexual freedom though that is not what I was talking about. More that women have the right to control with whom and when the have sex and right to birth control (pill), i.e. women are not a man’s property or plaything to be used. I think some have thought it means women should be more promiscuous or to use sex as power. This line of thought equates sexy as empowered. Taken further a sexy little girl is an empowered little girl. That is the problem I was trying to illustrate.

Single parent families are a part of it as well, I could see how single mothers may want to dress their children more as friends than kids, but I would be purely speculating.

I am interested to hear what the 1920s where just like what aspect of now? Were young girls pushed towards maturity faster? More promiscuity? More single parent families?

62

[quote]dshroy wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I have a 5 year old and a 3 year old daughter. They are being raised to be little ladies. When there are things that they want to get or watch or listen to, that we don’t think is appropriate, we tell them know and give them and age related explanation as to why.

The major problem is parents aren’t parents anymore. Family and structure are gone. We have bcome so driven my money an things that many parents work two jobs or are single parents. There isn’t enough time to counteract the brainwashing coming from society.

My wife and I made the decision to put our children first, we sold a house that was overly elaborate for an older house with some land in a more conservative area. She quit her job with PWC to be home with them and teach them along with their school education.

It is tough sometimes, not having the same income, ability to do things, but I think in the long run it will be best for them. I have also explained at work, I am salary, I will put in the time I am contracted for but my family especially at this time in their life is my priority.

We also have a 6 month old son, thank GOD science does help with the gender of babies if you use it. (if you want details I will send you the steps we followed for him) But he will be raised a strong male, a gentlemen and will be taught to cherish and respect females.

I realize they are their own individuals, but they will be given our best as parents to try be given some morals and respect for themselves and others.

My parents did this for me, my brothers and sisters. They chose us over money and tried their best. I know I did some bad things and wasn’t perfect, but really appreciate that.

They fought, they had tough times, they scraped by and had to deal with the trouble we caused. But they showed real love, for each other and for us as children. I figure my actions brought about these beautiful little children, the least I can do is my best for them.

Sorry for the rant, this is something I feel strongly about. We have completely altered our lives because we want to try to give our children a chance in this society, we even took my parents into our house to share in their lives. when my wife’s father retires, her parents have an open invitation to move to our property and we will do our best to keep the family together and strong. They cared for us, now it is our turn.
[/quote]
Nice Rant! I am serious too, having girls of my own i feel the same way you do on the topics you hit on. Wish more parents out there were like that.[/quote]

x2

There seem to be quite a few good parents on these boards.

63

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

now it seems like kids go from “Hi my name is…” to sucking dick and getting fucked. Much like anyone’s first date these days.

[/quote]

oh wow, we were supposed to get their names?

fml

64

As stated before, I’m a single father. I have a daughter that’s about to turn 8. She only wears one piece bathing suits, and that’s because I can’t put her in a suit of armor during the summer. I don’t trust a single motherfucker any where as far as my kids are concerned.

I agree with all the people that blame the parents for buying this type of crap. How ever, it only takes one idiot parent (looking at you, ex) to drive up the demand for these. One kid gets them because the parent wants to be more of a friend than caregiver, kids’ friends see it and they want it, and it just snowballs from there. Lucky for me, I can tune out whining right up to the point where I hand out spankings for it.

The only sentiment I can really add to the thought odf a push up bikini for kids is >huet< fucking gross!

Where’s that gif of Jim Carrey dry heaving from Dumb and Dumber?

65

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
blah blah blah
[/quote]

hhmmm… perhaps in two parent homes men are doing more parenting, but… there isn’t so much of that anymore. Either there is divorce or the “baby mama” and “baby daddy” crap that I am so sick of hearing about.

I worked family law,… not a lot of daddy’s taking care in so many situations.

In regards to sexual freedom, … . I don’t care if it makes me a prude but I don’t want my young children to be engaging in that. Wait until they are 40yrs old just like me!

I was speaking with a friend of my late grandmother’s and she did say the 1920’s were much like this. Although she did say women got married or adopted out the babies back then.

Maybe things really are just cyclical and I am just not so happy with this cycle. And I don’t even know if it is unhappy, it is just such a disappointment for the kids.

Man I had so much fun just “petting” and fooling around but now it seems like kids go from “Hi my name is…” to sucking dick and getting fucked. Much like anyone’s first date these days.

Please tell me Pleasantville is real.

[/quote]

My comments about men was really just to remove the blame, as in “Men are just objectifying little girls so they dress them sexy” type of response. But you can see here and on other threads that many of the guys here take their role as parent very seriously.

I see your point about sexual freedom though that is not what I was talking about. More that women have the right to control with whom and when the have sex and right to birth control (pill), i.e. women are not a man’s property or plaything to be used. I think some have thought it means women should be more promiscuous or to use sex as power. This line of thought equates sexy as empowered. Taken further a sexy little girl is an empowered little girl. That is the problem I was trying to illustrate.

Single parent families are a part of it as well, I could see how single mothers may want to dress their children more as friends than kids, but I would be purely speculating.

I am interested to hear what the 1920s where just like what aspect of now? Were young girls pushed towards maturity faster? More promiscuity? More single parent families?[/quote]

So is your problem with single parent households or just single mothers?

At least at my daughter’s school, it is the families who have 2 incomes that can afford to shop at these ridiculous boutique shops that look to “sex up” little girls. The single parents I know are shopping consignment or at the very least buying “generic” clothes.

Personally, I can’t fathom why anyone would want to spend so much money on children’s clothes to begin with, but, at least where I live, what your child wears reflects your own status. That includes ignoring common sense and dressing your child in the latest “fashions”.

66

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:

So is your problem with single parent households or just single mothers?

At least at my daughter’s school, it is the families who have 2 incomes that can afford to shop at these ridiculous boutique shops that look to “sex up” little girls. The single parents I know are shopping consignment or at the very least buying “generic” clothes.

Personally, I can’t fathom why anyone would want to spend so much money on children’s clothes to begin with, but, at least where I live, what your child wears reflects your own status. That includes ignoring common sense and dressing your child in the latest “fashions”.
[/quote]

I do not have a “problem” with single parent or single mother families, rather from what I have heard and read that some parents, and this includes two parent households, give in to the demands, or in essence buy love, of their kids to make up for the time they are working and not spending with them. The explanation (made by others) is that these parents look to be their kids friends over being the kids parents. This can and I think should be looked at as a reaction to economic necessities and social expectations first rather than an immediate default of the parent. It can reflect changes in family structure (as in the loss of extended family to help care for the kid(s) while parents work) among other things.

That said, the fact that roughly 40% of kids are born into single parent households cannot be ignored as a possible contributing factor in how kid-parent relationships are understood in today’s societies. Acknowledging that something might have an effect is not the same as saying it is the problem.

The trajectory of change in relationships between kids and parents is centuries old, influenced by many things, such as; movement from rural to urban, increase in leisure and disposable income, labor laws, increased demands for education, and other generational shifts.

I just am trying to understand and appreciate your input.

I think you have an important point in kids being/becoming status symbols. I am not sure if this is entirely new but as kids become the market for more and more marketing/consumption then their outward presentation, what they wear/have/consume is moved to the forefront. I think this could be argued theoretically as an extension of the Body Project, where the body is the individual’s pervayor of meaning.

67

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:

So is your problem with single parent households or just single mothers?

At least at my daughter’s school, it is the families who have 2 incomes that can afford to shop at these ridiculous boutique shops that look to “sex up” little girls. The single parents I know are shopping consignment or at the very least buying “generic” clothes.

Personally, I can’t fathom why anyone would want to spend so much money on children’s clothes to begin with, but, at least where I live, what your child wears reflects your own status. That includes ignoring common sense and dressing your child in the latest “fashions”.
[/quote]

I do not have a “problem” with single parent or single mother families, rather from what I have heard and read that some parents, and this includes two parent households, give in to the demands, or in essence buy love, of their kids to make up for the time they are working and not spending with them. The explanation (made by others) is that these parents look to be their kids friends over being the kids parents. This can and I think should be looked at as a reaction to economic necessities and social expectations first rather than an immediate default of the parent. It can reflect changes in family structure (as in the loss of extended family to help care for the kid(s) while parents work) among other things.

That said, the fact that roughly 40% of kids are born into single parent households cannot be ignored as a possible contributing factor in how kid-parent relationships are understood in today’s societies. Acknowledging that something might have an effect is not the same as saying it is the problem.

The trajectory of change in relationships between kids and parents is centuries old, influenced by many things, such as; movement from rural to urban, increase in leisure and disposable income, labor laws, increased demands for education, and other generational shifts.

I just am trying to understand and appreciate your input.

I think you have an important point in kids being/becoming status symbols. I am not sure if this is entirely new but as kids become the market for more and more marketing/consumption then their outward presentation, what they wear/have/consume is moved to the forefront. I think this could be argued theoretically as an extension of the Body Project, where the body is the individual’s pervayor of meaning.
[/quote]

I’ll admit that I tend to get slightly reactionary when the subject of single mothers comes up. It does seem that this has become a convenient scape goat for all of society’s ills. Kids doing drugs? Kids not getting exercise? A lack of discipline? Inevitably, the conversation will find its way back to single moms. If my response came off as accusatory because of it, I apologize.

I absolutely agree that the line between being a parent and being a friend to your child is blurred today. I just don’t think that it is relegated to single parent households. The single parents I know expect much more out of their children. When there is no “back-up” you are the one responsible for holding the line so are going to put up with significantly less bullshit.

Now, the point could be made that the absent parent (or week-end parent) dynamic causes a lot of problems. IME, this is where buying love becomes an issue. In trying to make the most of their 4 days a month, some parents turn to unadulterated spending sprees that the custodial parent simply cannot (and should not) live up to.

I guess what I am saying is that bad parenting is not determined by socioeconomic status.

68

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:

So is your problem with single parent households or just single mothers?

At least at my daughter’s school, it is the families who have 2 incomes that can afford to shop at these ridiculous boutique shops that look to “sex up” little girls. The single parents I know are shopping consignment or at the very least buying “generic” clothes.

Personally, I can’t fathom why anyone would want to spend so much money on children’s clothes to begin with, but, at least where I live, what your child wears reflects your own status. That includes ignoring common sense and dressing your child in the latest “fashions”.
[/quote]

I do not have a “problem” with single parent or single mother families, rather from what I have heard and read that some parents, and this includes two parent households, give in to the demands, or in essence buy love, of their kids to make up for the time they are working and not spending with them. The explanation (made by others) is that these parents look to be their kids friends over being the kids parents. This can and I think should be looked at as a reaction to economic necessities and social expectations first rather than an immediate default of the parent. It can reflect changes in family structure (as in the loss of extended family to help care for the kid(s) while parents work) among other things.

That said, the fact that roughly 40% of kids are born into single parent households cannot be ignored as a possible contributing factor in how kid-parent relationships are understood in today’s societies. Acknowledging that something might have an effect is not the same as saying it is the problem.

The trajectory of change in relationships between kids and parents is centuries old, influenced by many things, such as; movement from rural to urban, increase in leisure and disposable income, labor laws, increased demands for education, and other generational shifts.

I just am trying to understand and appreciate your input.

I think you have an important point in kids being/becoming status symbols. I am not sure if this is entirely new but as kids become the market for more and more marketing/consumption then their outward presentation, what they wear/have/consume is moved to the forefront. I think this could be argued theoretically as an extension of the Body Project, where the body is the individual’s pervayor of meaning.
[/quote]

I’ll admit that I tend to get slightly reactionary when the subject of single mothers comes up. It does seem that this has become a convenient scape goat for all of society’s ills. Kids doing drugs? Kids not getting exercise? A lack of discipline? Inevitably, the conversation will find its way back to single moms. If my response came off as accusatory because of it, I apologize.

I absolutely agree that the line between being a parent and being a friend to your child is blurred today. I just don’t think that it is relegated to single parent households. The single parents I know expect much more out of their children. When there is no “back-up” you are the one responsible for holding the line so are going to put up with significantly less bullshit.

Now, the point could be made that the absent parent (or week-end parent) dynamic causes a lot of problems. IME, this is where buying love becomes an issue. In trying to make the most of their 4 days a month, some parents turn to unadulterated spending sprees that the custodial parent simply cannot (and should not) live up to.

I guess what I am saying is that bad parenting is not determined by socioeconomic status. [/quote]

I do not mind clarifying my ideas if it leads to a better conversation.

I agree, bad parenting is equal opportunity.

69

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

We also have a 6 month old son, thank GOD science does help with the gender of babies if you use it. (if you want details I will send you the steps we followed for him) But he will be raised a strong male, a gentlemen and will be taught to cherish and respect females.

[/quote]

I’m not planning on having kids anytime soon, but this is relevant to my interest. PM please.

70

I just went to show my girlfriend the link and it has been changed. The same tops are there but they removed “push up” and put them all together under “triangles”. I wonder what happened.

71

Interesting comments here: Abercrombie & Fitch Sparks Outcry With Padded Bikini Tops for 8-Year-Olds | Fox News

72

I would be curious to see who is buying this for their child. If it doesn’t sell they won’t produce the item, but if they are continuing to carry the padded bra tops for 8yr olds then doesn’t it mean they are making a profit?

When it comes to the decision of purchase, it is always in the parent’s hands.

73

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Solarisol wrote:
I’m confused. Little girls don’t have anything to push up! What age is this marketed towards again?[/quote]

When no market exists, they create one. Just like laws & criminals. [/quote]

Sad but true.

74

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Solarisol wrote:
I’m confused. Little girls don’t have anything to push up! What age is this marketed towards again?[/quote]

When no market exists, they create one. Just like laws & criminals. [/quote]

I missed this before. What do you mean about laws and criminals?

75

Come on guys get hip, selling sex is no longer restricted by age. Look at this little hooker, shes only 12 and she knows how to use sell sex.

76

[quote]Dre the Hatchet wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

We also have a 6 month old son, thank GOD science does help with the gender of babies if you use it. (if you want details I will send you the steps we followed for him) But he will be raised a strong male, a gentlemen and will be taught to cherish and respect females.

[/quote]

I’m not planning on having kids anytime soon, but this is relevant to my interest. PM please.[/quote]

I’m interested but why would you need to PM that kind of info? Does the process involved sacrificing a goat or require the blood of a virgin?

Looks like they took down the bikini page.

77

Even I’m shocked at the stuff that makes it on the radio these days. I’m not saying we need censorship of any kind, but it shows how low our culture is when all anyone has to sing about are graphic sex acts.