If you see a child as “sexualised” there’s something wrong with your vision

4 Mar

On morals campaigner Melinda Tankard Reist’s website you’ll find this breakdown of a survey conducted by Girlfriend magazine on the sexual habits of their young readers. The magazine’s demographic is girls aged between twelve and seventeen.

The survey found that 75% of Girlfriend readers are not sexually active. The reasons given:

  • Waiting to be in love (56%)
  • Not wanting to have sex (37%)
  • Feeling too young (31%)
  • No particular reason (26%)
  • Waiting to be married (17%)
  • Waiting to be the legal age of consent (14%)
  • Waiting for their boyfriend/girlfriend to be ready (8%)
  • Not being interest in ever having sex (1%)

These reasons don’t appear to differ from reasons given by young women over the last few decades. It’s also possible, though unverifiable I imagine, that over the last few decades 25% of young women have engaged in some kind of sexual activity for a variety of reasons, just as they do today.

The Girlfriend survey appears to contest anecdotes such as those in the article “Stealing the innocence of children” published yesterday in the Fairfax Press. Using language such as onslaught, obsession, bombardment, and phrases such as “placing the child in a sexualised space,” “increasingly sexual and sexualised culture,” “hyenas circling” our young, and “people conditioned to see themselves as ‘product,'” the article paints an alarming picture of an apocalyptically sexualised society, controlled by a terrifyingly nebulous “them.”  The closest I can come to identifying “them” are as the manufacturers, producers, distributors  and marketers of a perceived “sexualised” and “pornified” popular culture.

They are further identified in the article as  “the seamier side of humanity” which has persuaded K-Mart, Target and other retailers to provide children’s clothing modelled on the imagined uniform of sex workers.

Children’s primary carers are obliged to buy  this inappropriate clothing and give it to kids to wear, causing them to look “hot” and “sexy.”

It takes a particular kind of perverted vision to see a child as “sexy” or “hot,” no matter what the child is wearing. I do not see children dressed in “sexy” clothing as “hot.”A child dressed like an adult looks to me like a child dressed like an adult. If the child is perceived as “sexualised” or “pornified” it must be the gaze of the adult viewer defining her as such, not the clothing and certainly not the child. It is impossible to “sexualise” and “pornify” a child by dressing her or him in any kind of clothing. Only a sexualising and pornifying gaze can impose that interpretation.

Further, I’d suggest that those currently most responsible for “sexualising” and “pornifying” children’s appearance are the very campaigners who complain most loudly about it. These people are demanding that we all adopt the pedophile gaze, and interpret a child’s appearance as “hot” and “sexy” rather than seeing it for what it is: children imitating adults. There is no innocence lost in the imitation. The innocence is destroyed by the adult’s sexualising gaze.

To others less inclined to make moral judgements based on bits of cloth, children are neither sexualised nor pornified. They are children in bits of cloth, funny, silly, imitating their elders, remarkable or unremarkable, but they are children. If you think they are sexually objectified, the problem is with you.

Is there any space more sexualised than that of an institution such as church or family, in which the child is raped? Is there anymore devastatingly sexualised, objectified and “pornified” child than the child raped in the home, church or other institution outwardly dedicated to her or his welfare? When a child’s body is used to gratify adult desire, that child’s innocence has indeed been destroyed. That child has indeed been sexualised and pornified. And the number of children whose innocence has been thus stolen is incalculable.

Yet is any of this mentioned, even in passing, in an article titled “Stealing the innocence of children?” No. It is not. It is far easier to blame a nebulous “them” for the  crime of clothing and music videos.

This is bandaid stuff. What actually demands our attention is the numbers of adults only too willing to see, to describe, and to use children as sexual objects, even those who perceive themselves as being on the side of the good. Campaigners such as Tankard Reist, Steve Biddulph, Emma Rush and Steve Hambleton unwittingly reproduce the pedophile gaze with their own determinedly sexualised readings of popular culture.  The pedophile claims in his defence that  “she looked like she wanted it,” even if she was only three. The campaigners are in great danger of saying something very similar, albeit for very different reasons.

If you want to protect the innocence of children, don’t impose your sexualising vision on them. If you want to let kids be kids just do it, by recognising that they cannot be sexualised by the clothing they wear, but only by your interpretation of what that clothing signifies.

The campaigners are railing against a particular sexual aesthetic, one that given their reference to sex workers and aspects of popular culture may well be class-based. It’s not so long ago that girls who dressed in a certain way were described as “cheap.” That meant sexually easy, and the girls thus described were not middle class. Today “cheap” garments and attitudes are increasingly infiltrating the middle class, blurring class distinctions and causing what can only be described as a moral panic as those who are well used to controlling an orthodox conservative sexual discourse find themselves challenged as never before.

In another article titled “Save your daughter from the wild-child syndrome,” Steve Biddulph states ” If a girl is going to go wrong, it will be at 14.”  If a girl is going to go wrong? This binary of good and bad girls, right and wrong girls, is at the heart of the sexualisation and pornification panic. “Good and right” girls are increasingly indistinguishable from “bad and wrong girls” in their clothing choices. Hell, these days everyone’s looking like hookers and pole dancers! Clothes, once a primary signifier of middle class status and morality, now make  “good” girls look like they’re “bad.”

The conservative middle class, whether secular or religious, prescribes a morality that condemns the perceived sexually “easy” girl or woman. There remains, even among the non religious, a code of sexual manners that frowns upon any perceived flaunting of female sexuality.

The morals campaigners are of course never going to question their dogma about how girls and women should express our sexuality. In feminism’s second wave, we learned the folly of unquestioningly accepting the authority of the orthodoxy, and the unnecessary suffering involved in attempting to adjust ourselves to its man-made rules. We need a similar revolution in which we vigorously contest the domination of conservative sexual morality on our culture. Indeed, perhaps such a revolution is already underway, and the current moral panic is the outraged and fearful reaction.

Confusion: just because a girl wears a short skirt doesn’t mean she’s asking for it. On the other hand, the short skirt sexualises, pornifies and objectifies you so if you wear it, you look like a girl going wrong, and asking for it.

The bizarre marriage of radical feminism and right wing religious activism, occasioned to contest that other bogeyman, pornography, is an example of how the desire to censor and control is not confined to the religious. Russell Blackford considers this in his piece on Iceland’s recent initiative to ban certain types of pornography. “You can’t assume that secularism in a country’s population will solve all problems of moralism, anti-sex attitudes, and a general wish by governments and electorates to interfere with people’s lives” Blackford observes. While we know Melinda Tankard Reist comes from a Christian fundamentalist background, and Steve Hambleton is a devout Catholic, their conservative sexual politics are shared and promoted by the non religious as well.

When religious beliefs can’t be invoked to substantiate moralities, psychology, psychiatry and regurgitation of received knowledge is often as, if not more, effective. All of these traditionally accept an initial cultural premise: that there are particular ways of behaving and expressing sexuality that are unquestionably right, and veering from them is wrong. The stranglehold this perspective has on society is currently under great pressure, nowhere as evidenced in the rebellion of the young,who’s collective determination to clothe themselves like porn stars, as the horrified adults would have it, is breaking all the rules of sexual propriety and class.

The extreme manifestation of this propriety is manifested in remarks such as those made by Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, who famously declared that the virginity of his three daughters was the greatest gift they could offer anyone and he hopes they’ll wait till they marry to bestow it.

I recall a sex talk given to us fourteen year olds by the Mother Superior, in which she advised us that we should not be like cream buns in the bakery window. Who, she asked rhetorically, wants to buy a cream bun from which someone else has already taken a lick? It’s only in retrospect I can see the bawdiness of that analogy, and I’m sure Mother Dorothea had no inkling. However, her advice does indicate there were enough girls being cream buns, even several decades ago, for us good girls to be warned of the perils that entailed.

There are, of course, real causes for concern. Five year old girls ought not to be so obsessed about their weight and appearance that their mental and physical health is threatened. I suggest that’s a separate issue from the “sexualisation and pornification”   claims, but it is a habit of these campaigners to conflate all the issues (as is exemplified in the Fairfax article)  into an “ain’t it awful” catastrophic expectation, won’t somebody think of our children who will save our girls meme.

I can’t watch shows like “Biggest Loser” because of their cruelty,and their commitment to fat-shaming, treacherously disguised as concern. No wonder little girls are scared to death of gaining any weight. They’ve got the message: everyone will hate and shame them if they aren’t reed thin. Many of them have close adult females who angst over their weight, teaching little girls that their lives will be good or bad depending on how much they weigh. I suggest this is far more insidious than any piece of sparkly skimpy cloth K-Mart has on its shelves.

Likewise, the idea of someone dressing a baby in a shirt bearing the slogan “All Daddy wanted was a blow job” is my idea of over-sharing. I’ve never seen such a shirt, though I don’t doubt they exist.

Children have always been born into a “sexualised space.” Planet Earth is a sexualised space, sex is a powerful human drive that everyone encounters, one way or another. Children are sexual beings, and understand from an early age that there is something profoundly mysterious in the adult world that is forbidden to them. Naturally, they want entry into that world, and one of the ways they achieve a semblance of belonging is by imitating adult appearance and behaviour. What kind of a mind construes this imitation as reality, and demands that the rest of us do the same?

What we need to do is really see the children, and not take flight into a moral panic that they cannot understand. There is a child at play inside the “hot” “sexy” clothes. That child shouldn’t have to choose between being a good girl or a bad girl, between going wrong or going right. Adults are responsible for the paucity of role models on offer for children to emulate. If we really care about the children, this is what we’ll address. But that’s going to be a lot harder than blaming K-mart.

innocence

128 Responses to “If you see a child as “sexualised” there’s something wrong with your vision”

  1. kristinmoore2 March 4, 2013 at 1:56 pm #

    Oh well written – a hearty and sustained round of applause! The only thing I can add is to point out that those who sexually abuse children within the boundaries of care and family situations frequently justify their actions by claiming a ‘special bond’ or a ‘special understanding’ with that child.
    Beware of those who claim to know our children better than we know them ourselves, or who ask them to meekly submit to adult instructions because they are ‘good children’, and who seek to impose their own interpretation of ‘morality’ or ‘values’ upon them. Teach your children to fight, scream, to be ‘wrong’ and ‘naughty’ and to stand up for their rights to dress any way they please, it may serve them well one day.

    Like

  2. gerard oosterman March 4, 2013 at 2:10 pm #

    If a child is dressed like and adult and if we assume adults are sexual beings than it doesn’t strike me as being all that far of the mark to suggest that dressing children in bikinis or tottering about in high heels, lace up boots etc that some see that as being sexualised.
    I have little sympathy for those American style fashions for children, nor for those silly child beauty shows or pageants. All this blue for boys and pink for girls , yuk!
    We could perhaps reverse this and have adults dressed in children’s clothes with pull-ups, jump suits or barbie doll like. Actually , a barbie doll is a child with adult features, isn’t it? All part of the US terminal neuroses that sees making money as the only goal.

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe March 4, 2013 at 2:26 pm #

      Amanda Vanstone running around in nappies?
      Brrrrrrrrrrr
      No thanks.

      Like

    • Jennifer Wilson March 4, 2013 at 2:36 pm #

      Profit. That’s what it’s all about

      Like

      • atomou March 4, 2013 at 7:12 pm #

        You mean… exploitation, Jennifer? Of children? Via sexualisation, perhaps?

        Like

        • atomou March 5, 2013 at 8:24 pm #

          Not fair, of me Jennifer! I feel ashamed and dependant dropping this one over glib line to you! I mean to get back and do this magnificent article of yours justice but life’s channels dragged me in all directions immediately afterwards. Couldn’t get a minute to myself!
          Anyhow… For what it’s worth, I have written a comment upon BACWAS down below. I need to follow it with something about the symbolism of clothes (at least that’s the title that my noodle concocted just now) if you’ll let me but I’ll get back to that the moment I get a chance.

          Like

          • atomou March 5, 2013 at 9:09 pm #

            Bloody auto correct! Repentant not dependant! How does one turn the bloody thing orf?

            Like

            • doug quixote March 5, 2013 at 10:09 pm #

              Turn it off, and the spell checker too. I have always spelled far more accurately than the cretins at Microsoft ever dreamt.

              Let it all hang out! I won’t correct others’ spelling unless it is funny, or the misspelling is of an important person’s name.

              Like

              • atomou March 5, 2013 at 10:19 pm #

                But how? I’ve turned it off on Word but I can’t seem to find the right button on the browsers.

                Like

          • atomou March 5, 2013 at 9:12 pm #

            over-glib, meant, my noodle has concocted… oh, why bother?

            Like

    • Mindy March 4, 2013 at 2:37 pm #

      You may not be surprised to hear then Gerard that Target currently has full sized rompers for adult men, with an elasticised panel at the back allowing them to be pulled down so …I’m sure you get the drift.

      My biggest gripe with skimpy clothing is that little kids still need to be warm and skimpy just doesn’t cut it. Plus I know that there are still quite a few people out there with the ‘well if she was wearing that what did she expect’ attitude and I don’t want my child being stigmatised from an early age just because she wears clothing they don’t approve of. They can disapprove as much as they like when she is a teenager, if they don’t then obviously something has gone seriously wrong. Half the fun of being a teenager is the disapproval of a certain subset of society.

      Like

      • gerard oosterman March 4, 2013 at 3:09 pm #

        Some kids as they get older can’t wait to grow up and want to dress up. Fair enough, I did the same and what greater sign to be seen as grown up than with a cigarette nonchalantly held between the fingers wearing long trousers etc.
        But…for adults wanting to dress up their kids like mini adults is just silly irrespective of sex and is just pampering to commercial pressures.

        Like

    • hudsongodfrey March 4, 2013 at 4:36 pm #

      What if some people place an interpretation like “sexualisation” on things, but they’re just plain wrong and we can explain it to them, then do you think we could just move on?

      I think there’s good evidence that this does happen but that these people aren’t willing to accept reasonable explanations or to move on.

      For example putting little girls in bikinis seems weirder to me than allowing them to go topless. Others may beg to differ but I what I certainly don’t think is that holding an opinion on the matter makes the adult who holds it into a paedophile.

      Like

      • paul walter March 4, 2013 at 4:41 pm #

        Scores AGAIN.

        Like

  3. Hypocritophobe March 4, 2013 at 2:22 pm #

    “those currently most responsible for “sexualising” and “pornifying” children’s appearance are the very campaigners who complain most loudly about it. These people are demanding that we all adopt the pedophile gaze, and interpret a child’s appearance as “hot” and “sexy” rather than seeing it for what it is: children imitating adults.”

    Oh to get the MTRs of the world on National TV to debate this concept,with some meaty independent peer reviewed science and data, and not the raucous cheers of the circus following clowns,making quintillions for the Faux Outrage Petition Industry.

    It seems to me that those objecting to the harm of porn (Dines et al) watch a lot of it,over and over again, and yet somehow miraculously they are immune to its deadly persuasions, which if you believe their rhetoric is impossible NOT to submit to.
    Go figure.

    Like

    • Jennifer Wilson March 4, 2013 at 2:36 pm #

      Yes, Hypo this has always puzzled me,how they and they alone manage to avoid being perverted by porn.

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe March 4, 2013 at 2:40 pm #

        Balls of steel?

        Like

        • Jennifer Wilson March 4, 2013 at 4:01 pm #

          Yuk. What, Gail Dines? No that’s a rhetorical question don’t answer it!!! LOL

          Like

          • hudsongodfrey March 4, 2013 at 10:39 pm #

            if you ever get the chance to catch the Penn & Teller’s Bullshit episode entitled “War on Porn” the hatchet job that they did on Dines is almost cruel!

            They have her saying “There are no good studies”…. on a loop!

            Like

            • paul walter March 5, 2013 at 4:53 am #

              Got it after a snooze… Aimee Semple MacPherson?

              Like

              • hudsongodfrey March 5, 2013 at 8:59 am #

                She sounds like a typical early 20th century American evangelist to me? What’s the connection with Dines?

                Like

                • paul walter March 5, 2013 at 9:42 am #

                  The film clip,
                  Your rough mates, to me. offered a glimpse of a secular form of evangelicalism masquerading as some thing rationalistic, but couched in deliberately open ended, vague and emotive language, from Dines,
                  Her spiel preached to the converted, seemed similar to Michele Bachmann of the US Tea Party, the thing staged to present her as as a heroinic oracle and martyr within a never ending narrative based on tendentious assumptions,rather than an objective analysis of sexual behaviour where substance or accuracy in the arguments themselves, in that secular church that was the uni hall, played second fiddle to the staging.
                  To me it looked like a cult of personality dressed up as a forum.
                  Who or what did they want ? Did they know themselves beyond a vague indication that it could be anyone they wanted, virtually, provided probably, it was male?

                  Like

                  • paul walter March 5, 2013 at 9:50 am #

                    I think I explained above badly, reducing , think of another analogy, involving a sexological version of Lord Monckton.
                    She is to pr#n what Monckton is to climate change denialism.

                    Like

                  • hudsongodfrey March 5, 2013 at 10:22 am #

                    Sorry Paul I’m still not clear there may be comments to other posters lost in the thread that I’ve missed.

                    By film clip do you mean the P&T BS I mentioned earlier to Jennifer. I hadn’t needed to re-watch it, so I thought.

                    Are you saying the Dines presents as a secular version of the anti-porn evangelist? Or are you having trouble with Penn’s language or the smartass persona that he adopts for that show. I guess the hint was in the name….

                    Like

                    • paul walter March 5, 2013 at 12:22 pm #

                      Never mind, will get back to you on it later.. hardly important in the wider scheme of things…
                      Enjoy your stoush with Hypo and Marilyn, elsewhere..

                      Like

                    • hudsongodfrey March 5, 2013 at 12:38 pm #

                      A bit of friendly banter among compatriots who tied of one another’s well known views should hardly be called a stoush….I hope nobody’s seriously put out by the fact that we punt the ball back and forth a bit whenever the topic arises.

                      Like

    • paul walter March 4, 2013 at 4:40 pm #

      Nail on head, self serving beatups, almost an industry. But it dont stop kiddy diddling.

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe March 4, 2013 at 11:02 pm #

        Nothing ‘almost’ about it.

        Like

  4. paul walter March 4, 2013 at 2:27 pm #

    12-17 could be an eternity I would have thought. The average twelve year old is probably more interested in have a game of net ball with her friends. a timless period is coming to end, but at this age not necessarily yet.
    A seventeen yo will probably be a different kettle of fish, post puberty. She is on the cusp of or at (early) adult hood, hormones running, perhaps dating and partying and better informed on sexual esoterica. You’d suspect the twenty five percent of girls sexually active come this end of the range.
    And you’d think not a lot sinister in it by this age.
    The fact that the enviro has always been “sexual”, is also a factor weighing heavily on the bacwas.
    The grain of truth in it all may be that advertising may be psychologically sophisticated enough to induce girls (and lads ) to think of themselves exclusively as pop tarts, (or machos)permanently as part of a giving advertising branding or demographic brand inscription spiel that might only be interested in flogging a product a certain way, without concern that a tactic might damage the customer.
    There’s no doubt advertising feeds off all youngsters and how much it interferes with the “wiring”, I don’t know. But it can I think and has been able to do for sometimes… the malls are full of sixty yo Janis Joplins and Jimmy Pages acting out the circular scripts implanted may, many decades ago,
    The problem for the bacwas actually rests in their profound need to express themselves in open ended and emotive language: Girls and women who enjoy normal adult fruits are “bad girls”, or “sluts” for example, this is vile and loaded judgemental language that denies a fair chance at choice through an honest setting out the issue. Perhaps in previous generations when contraception didn’t exist, maybe it was fairer to scare girls away from early pregnancy, but this is the twenty first century, for god’s sake!
    Science shouldn’t play hand maid to lazy assumptions and cherished and unexamined prejudices- Fail, MTR
    Go back and consider how this “survey” could be dealt with a bit more thoughtfully and in a more adult and constructively way, please.

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe March 4, 2013 at 2:44 pm #

      Apart from the odd background whimpering, what has the BACWA community done to head off the lucrative schoolies hump fest?
      I mean ‘consistency’ is important, isn’t it?

      Are they out there handing out red fogs,red condoms,red chastity belts or red bibles?

      Like

      • helvityni March 4, 2013 at 3:59 pm #

        Hypo, teenagers have always had sex, in the past many a girl fell pregnant. The pregnancies still happen, just watch the teen mums in shopping malls…
        So to prevent this from happening, good sex education starting early, and later on we pray and hope they are taking precautions, so does it really matter who hands the schoolies condoms, any colour, as long the unwanted pregnancies stop happening…

        Like

        • Hypocritophobe March 4, 2013 at 5:43 pm #

          I’m not denying that,Helvi, nor am I campaigning against schoolies.
          I’m saying if the BACWAs were true to themselves (ergo not hypocrites) they would have schoolies as their number one target.For the very reason it is a sex,alcohol(and probably party drug) fest.
          Surely this is the BACWAS happy hunting grounds.
          Virgins a plenty, and all to be saved from a life of regret and misery.A hell on earth.

          I’m sure that the BACWAs were all virgins when married,only have monogamous sex, and don’t watch porn.It must be hard to be so perfect that they get to exclude themselves from their demands.

          Like

    • samjandwich March 4, 2013 at 4:15 pm #

      Song lyrics time!

      It’s a poor translation so I won’t post it here, but Paul’s post just got me singing along to the radio in my head playing Jacques Brel’s “Les Biches”: http://lyricstranslate.com/en/les-biches-roe-deer.html

      Like

      • paul walter March 4, 2013 at 4:43 pm #

        Now my suspicions are raised.
        Do I open the link with my back turned,looking through a glass darkly?

        Like

        • samjandwich March 4, 2013 at 4:51 pm #

          Sorry Paul, I hope I didn’t get you sacked!

          This one’s “SFW” 🙂

          Like

          • paul walter March 4, 2013 at 5:30 pm #

            You WILL have it that I’m a misogynist, won’t you?
            If I go to the vet and get “it” done, will you feel better about me?

            Like

            • paul walter March 4, 2013 at 5:36 pm #

              Any way, enough all this of children running around in tee- shirts that plead, “f-ck me”.
              What sort of cretins were the corporate people for starting up such unimaginative bunkum on kids clothes?
              I bags we adjourn to Rooty Hill for beers and entertainments at the club.

              Like

  5. helvityni March 4, 2013 at 2:44 pm #

    I observed two girls at a nearby playground, they were about nine: one wore leggings, flat shoes and her hair was in a ponytail, the other had shoes with dangerously high heels, little singlet top with thin straps that kept falling down… She kept pulling them up as underneath she had another strappy thing…a bra! Both girls were flat as pancakes as girls that age usually are, one could run and slide to her hearts content, the other constantly fiddling with her clothes…

    Sexy dressing, maybe not, but totally restricting her ability to move and play.

    Like

    • paul walter March 4, 2013 at 3:11 pm #

      Shrewd point, Helvi.

      Like

    • Jennifer Wilson March 4, 2013 at 3:58 pm #

      Yes, which is much more important. Comfort for kids to do kid stuff.

      Like

  6. Ray (novelactivist) March 4, 2013 at 2:54 pm #

    I believe the article showed a tot wearing a ‘hung like a donkey’ t-shirt. Has anyone actually seen a tot wearing one of these t-shirts – ever?

    Anyway, well said. You know I am in full agreement.

    Like

    • Jennifer Wilson March 4, 2013 at 4:01 pm #

      No, I’ve never seen anything like that

      Like

      • paul walter March 4, 2013 at 4:38 pm #

        True.,
        Donkeys are well-hung.

        Like

        • Hypocritophobe March 4, 2013 at 5:49 pm #

          He whore?

          Like

    • samjandwich March 4, 2013 at 4:31 pm #

      I’ve seen a 12-ish year old girl at my local shopping mall (not even in the Western suburbs!!) with the words “all this could be yours” written across her chest.

      And there was that lovely photo, on “the Chive” I think, of a girl described as “jailbait” – whose t-shirt carried the slogan “work in progress” across her breasts, and a V-shaped shape pointing down towards her crotch underneath the words “good to go”

      So yeah, I’m perhaps not quite so unequivocal as you Jennifer because I do think that there is a line beyond which it might be reasonable to say that something is inciting paedophilia. But basically yes I agree that Ms TR et al are doing is objectifying children, and failing to take into account their lives experiences and the background environments to this issue generally.

      But it’s only logical, because for me what characterises conservatism is a deep misgiving about other people. The space between a person’s ears is a mystifying place, and it seems like conservatism would prefer to have it sanitised rather than made transparent.

      But then it makes me wonder, if heroin blitzes your senses into a state of blissful oblivion, then how could conservatives possibly be against it?

      Ultimately I suppose it’s hard to know where to turn when faced with so many contradictions, except to the things that are safe to cling onto.

      Like

      • hudsongodfrey March 4, 2013 at 7:59 pm #

        I don’t think Jennifer is saying that or that it would be reasonable to expect anyone to defend against the possibility of extreme cases where we know that a bright line could be drawn.

        If you ask whether there’s a such a line beyond which something like child prostitution might be occurring then obviously I guess that does exist.

        But that line isn’t crossed in the mere act of a child wearing inappropriate clothing because some adult projects sexual portent on the image.

        Yes, I can find the image of the kid in the violent singlet with the wording you described on the internet. Maybe it is just a way of challenging adult authority albeit a perplexing one. But what’s really going on when these kinds of images are singled out is that people are using them to trigger outrage so that the thin edge of a wedge that ends in banning things can be inserted. Perish the thought that anyone question parenting in the individual case rather than assuming there’s a chain store out there corrupting the young by selling these shirts. For all we know it’s one of a kind,and nor would it be hard to photoshop!

        Like

  7. hudsongodfrey March 4, 2013 at 4:20 pm #

    I agree completely with Jennifer.

    Surely the issues around consent and the somewhat nebulous use of the term “sexualisation” are being argued from an inherently contradictory standpoint. If the innocent child as defined within certain age limits is truly incapable of consent and presumably not sexually aware then the reasons for their desire to dress up a certain way are non sexual in nature. So I guess what must be being targeted is something else, which probably has everything to do with how adults process their encounters with children given that we aren’t sexually innocent! Which simply begs the question whether it matters to some people, and if so why, that adults should preferably be sexually innocent?

    For most of us, and I can only speak as a man in saying I think we’re especially challenged by pubescent young women, there are times when we have inappropriate sexual urges that we know we have to control. Some of them are even sanctioned by law in case we weren’t quite sure and couldn’t guess! So surely we already know and there should be no real further problem or need of discussion on the subject.

    I’d also say that the same applies if we’re realistic enough to acknowledge that children gradually become more self aware and therefore conscious of their own appearances and later their sexuality in way that doesn’t really change the taboos we maintain around sexually inappropriate behaviour. Adults still know where their responsibilities lie, and what all parents are confronted with as their children mature is the need to supply a certain amount of guidance. Some would say that because this thing called “sexualisation” exists then children and teens need more guidance, but I’m not convinced that what we’re really dealing with aren’t differing attitudes around frankness about sexuality in ways that if sexual conservatives had their way would leave us no better off than we were back in the dark ages when any and every source of reliable information was completely denied us.

    Either way there’s clearly an agenda here that insults our intelligence in its attempts to control things on behalf of others for very dubious reasons about which its advocates are generally quite duplicitous. Clearly what matters most to these people isn’t really evidence of anything more needful of vigilance than has always been the case. What matters to them is who gets to control it and when! The idea that it could ever be something between a personal responsibility for adults or their primary responsibility as parents seems never to have even occurred to them?

    Like

  8. Duncan Fine March 4, 2013 at 5:44 pm #

    thank you …

    Like

  9. Hypocritophobe March 4, 2013 at 5:56 pm #

    Pssst look >
    ?
    Do you see?>
    ?
    See what I see/>
    ??
    You do see it?>???
    You must see it?>
    😦
    You will see it!>
    😦 😦 ?
    See, I told you, you saw it>
    ?!!?!!?
    Look everybody>everybody else sees it like us!?

    Enter the lobbyist…….

    Like

  10. paul walter March 4, 2013 at 6:16 pm #

    One thing that occurred to me was the strange “survey”,involving 12-17 yo’s and how the info was treated and presented.
    Another thing, emerging in the thread, is the different between the attitude of some of the women posters, at the coalface with kids of their own and not eager to have their hard work undone by roaming paedophiles.
    For these people, there is no margin, they are anxious and a bit, “shoot first, ask questions later”- ish.
    At the other end are people like me, no kids, no personal investment so to speak, for who this is best described as an abstract or academic exercise, conducted from a distance.
    Do people in the “children industry”, really understand the edginess they are going to instill into parents with their often “loaded” commentaries?

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe March 4, 2013 at 6:27 pm #

      “Do people in the “children industry”, really understand the edginess they are going to instill into parents with their often “loaded” commentaries?”

      Does the term *do as I say,not as I do* ring any ‘belles’.?

      Instilling fear is exactly what forms the core of their mission.
      Treat every man as a predator and the kids will be safe.
      Or trust who we tell you to,ONLY they can be trusted!
      (Priest paedophilia,anyone?)

      Whenever the topic of sexualisation of kids comes up,the BACWA gob bandits should be judged first and foremost by their absolute lack of public outrage and campaigning, regarding sex abuse by the Catholic Church.
      I’ll bet the majority of the churches victims were not embellished with the garments in question.
      Were those kids safer?
      How so?

      Like

      • paul walter March 4, 2013 at 7:12 pm #

        Yes, I reckon.
        I think has a parallel in the dog-whistling playing on racial anxieties with Morrison being the latest example. It’s the age of identity politics, which has superceded situational politics (class conflict etc), as surely as exchange value has superceded use value.
        Your sense of self identity as a “bloke” is challenged, or your self esteem as a woman and mother, say.
        “Keep the perverts out” is not dissimilar to “keep asylum seekers out”, or even, “put the workers in their place”.
        And the real problems are kept out of the way, as people are aroused on the symptoms rather than the underlying problems.

        Like

        • Hypocritophobe March 4, 2013 at 7:38 pm #

          Pro-active vigilantism.

          Like

          • paul walter March 4, 2013 at 8:42 pm #

            That is a lay down misere for my “quote of the month”.

            Like

            • Hypocritophobe March 4, 2013 at 9:00 pm #

              Feel free to swap the first word to ‘pre-emptive’.
              I think you get the drift.

              Like

  11. doug quixote March 5, 2013 at 12:20 am #

    The moralists see what would “get them going” if they weren’t so disciplined! It is a short step then to project the effects onto those who they see as less disciplined than they are.

    That is the essence of the BACWA – they say to themselves “There but for the grace of God go I” and think there may be a chance that someone “out there” is having a good time. Get out the hair shirt; and if that’s not enough, then flagellation is just the ticket.

    Like

    • samjandwich March 5, 2013 at 10:32 am #

      What does BACWA stand for anyway?

      Bitches And Cunts Who Abstain, perhaps?

      Like

      • doug quixote March 5, 2013 at 1:54 pm #

        The Banning And Censoring Wowser Agenda – add “-ists” on the end if you want to relate it to those who follow it.

        A wowser may or may not seek to ban and censor, and may or may not be a hypocrite (but 99% give the rest a bad name) 🙂

        Like

      • hudsongodfrey March 5, 2013 at 4:08 pm #

        http://www.abbreviations.com/term/1431707

        Like

      • paul walter March 5, 2013 at 5:18 pm #

        Barbecue And Cherries With Aluminium?

        Like

        • Hypocritophobe March 5, 2013 at 5:41 pm #

          The BACWA fatwa is gunna getcha.

          Like

          • hudsongodfrey March 5, 2013 at 10:06 pm #

            Hello Bacwa, hello Fatwa
            Here I am with my banana.
            Playing with it’s entertaining,
            But I think the wowsers wanna bash my brains in.

            Like

            • Hypocritophobe March 5, 2013 at 10:56 pm #

              Apologies for the upper case.
              (I’m not really SHOUTING!)
              A long and Windows story>
              Sheesh

              A CHURCH HOUSE STRAIGHT SPOUSE
              A SCHOOL HOUSE WITHOUT NOUSE
              ON HIGHWAY NUMBER NINETEEN
              THE PEOPLE KEEP THE CITY CLEAN
              THEY CALL IT
              BACWA OH BACWA
              CALL IT BACWA SNOOTY LIMITS

              TWENTY-FIVE WAS THE AGE LIMIT
              SEXY TOYS NOT ALLOWED IN IT
              A PETITION ON FRIDAY
              YOU GO TO CHURCH ON SUNDAY
              THEY CALL IT
              BACWA OH BACWA
              CALL IT BACWA SNOOTY LIMITS

              YOU GO TO THE FIELDINGS ON WEEKDAYS
              AND THEN LOBBY THE LABOR WAY
              YOU GO TO ABBOTT ON SATURDAY
              BUT GO TO THE CHURCH EV’RY SUNDAY
              THEY CALL IT
              BACWA OH BACWA
              CALL IT BACWA SNOOTY LIMITS

              NO PUSSY FOR SALE
              YOU CAN’T COP NO NAIL
              STIFF PORK AND MOLE ASSES
              IS ALL YOU GET IN JAIL
              THEY CALL IT
              BACWA OH BACWA
              CALL IT BACWA SNOOTY LIMITS

              Like

              • hudsongodfrey March 6, 2013 at 12:10 am #

                Sounds like Ike would’ve approved!

                Like

                • paul walter March 6, 2013 at 3:27 am #

                  I like Ike!

                  Like

  12. Marilyn March 5, 2013 at 5:43 pm #

    I think they just have dirty minds.

    Like

    • doug quixote March 5, 2013 at 7:28 pm #

      A good summary, Marilyn! 🙂

      Like

      • doug quixote March 5, 2013 at 7:35 pm #

        The thing is they are hypocritical about it. I don’t know about you, but i suspect that I have a “dirty mind” as well.

        The BACWA seek to enforce their hypocritical wowserism on everyone else.

        Like

    • paul walter March 6, 2013 at 8:39 am #

      All men have dirty minds…

      Like

  13. atomou March 5, 2013 at 8:26 pm #

    From Whore to BACWA… by way of marriage.

    The following is an illustration only. Of what, that will pretty be much be up to the reader but one might suggest that both behaviours are driven by similarly powerful forces, one might be tempted to call them by the word Socrates and Procopius himself has used, “demons” the nature of which is probably too deep to fathom even for the professional fathomers of the human demons, elsewise called psychologists. I certainly can’t fathom such or any other demons, for that matter, at all!

    According to Procopius# then the great Empress Theodora, wife to Justinian I (romani catholici of the 6th century AD) was a whore with quite a gluttonous appetite for it. Simply insatiable! Not only did she “push the envelope” as it were, when she performed her highly imaginative sex acts in the theatre (Swans following bread crumbs ended up by picking the last of them between her naked legs) she also used to go off to “picknicks” with a small army of soldiers, often more than twenty of them, which soldiers, came back to their barracks with excoriated members.
    Such was the woman before she married Justinian and became an empress. But then the Imperial crown had not yet time to settle upon her dark tresses when she converted into BACWAtism! She immediately began decreeing decrees banning prostitution to the penalty of death and went on with enacting laws that fettered women to men. Made them chattels of men.

    It is an exceedingly interesting, nay, most gorgeous, tale of conversion and I commend it to anyone who likes… History. However, I do not wish to dwell on it here… other to remind the reader that Procopious had, in fact, written three accounts of this woman and the above is his last one which was kept secret and unrevealed until almost a thousand years later. In other accounts of his, he talks of her in glorious terms, using adjectives such as “brave” and “pious” and “magnanimous,” and other equally generous ones.

    Therefore and to wit:
    People are often violently attracted to one or other or both of these temptations and history has many such examples of conversions. History, as well as modern life.
    The one I have uppermost in my mind, at the moment is that of the Irish Cardinal, Cardinal Sean Brady (I wonder what’s happened to the halo that used to precede his name). A Cardinal is as close as you can get to an empress.
    I am certainly now not drawing this line long enough to include any members of the current adversaries to the porn industry or to those who attack the industries who use minors to advertise their skimpy clothes but I do insist that the two issues, whores and babies’ clothes should be separated well away from each other when discussing one or tother.
    Conflating them is fraught with danger to do great injustice to both.

    # “Secret Histories” http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/12916/pg12916.html
    and in the original:
    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a2008.01.0669

    Like

    • hudsongodfrey March 5, 2013 at 9:54 pm #

      Some things never change…. It still takes one to know one 😉

      Like

    • doug quixote March 5, 2013 at 10:18 pm #

      Not unique by any means, atomou. They say the best gamekeeper was once a poacher, and the new convert to a religion is the most devout, quite often.

      And so it goes.

      Like

      • atomou March 5, 2013 at 10:33 pm #

        But these two particular moral stances are the quintessence of hypocrisy. A priest must not be a sexual predator, a whore must not be an anti-whore.
        Last night Emma Alberici interviewed the Mayor of some Sydney City (where Julia is doing the waddle) who had converted from one political belief system to another (Lab to Lib). That sort I can understand, even though the man was a total political slut and an idiot. It also shows that morally, it’s very easy to make these changes, since the two are bloody identical on so many issues.
        But when it comes to religion and sex, I would have thought, the good books tell the believers that they must not read bad books, let alone do what they read in them.

        Like

        • Hypocritophobe March 5, 2013 at 11:07 pm #

          “A priest must not be a sexual predator, a whore must not be an anti-whore.”

          And therefore those who make money by claiming to support (advocate) women/girls/children must be the loudest voices against ALL paedophilia, especially the church.

          Where can one find such awe-inspiring,community galvanising,media saturated, world changing Collective Shout message, calling for an end to the sex assaults, by churches on children?

          And what date, time span accompanies this war they raged?

          Like

          • Hypocritophobe March 5, 2013 at 11:08 pm #

            ‘waged’ ?

            Like

    • paul walter March 6, 2013 at 3:38 am #

      Nothing worse than reformed smokers and whores..

      Like

  14. atomou March 5, 2013 at 11:21 pm #

    It’s BAKLAVA You silly people! BAKLAVA1

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe March 5, 2013 at 11:29 pm #

      No way Atom Ant.
      A Baklava is either a disguise for bandits,a neat Russian jig, a type of icy treat an instrument, or molten stuff on your rear upper torso.
      Or possibly dog vomit (bark lava)

      Like

      • paul walter March 6, 2013 at 3:39 am #

        Balaklava.. A sleepy wheat town fifty or sixty miles north of Adelaide.

        Like

        • atomou March 6, 2013 at 5:21 am #

          What Adelaide? It’s right here, in Melbourne! Daughter lives there. Balaklava is next to St.Kilda where the whores and Bakwasi live in great harmony and the men in their cars pull up by the curb and never know what their hooks fished out: “Is it a whore or is it a Bakwasa?” But that doesn’t matter. What matters is the price and the fantasy.

          Sing Muse of the hedonistic pleasure the brave Achilles felt
          That day and night in his tent before the chief Agamemnon came and stole his beloved Chreisis, booty of the great war
          Under the great towers of Ilium, daughter of Chrises, Apollo’s
          Devout priest.
          Sing Muse of that great delight the hero felt in the arms of that virgin!

          Hads I been the Homer of the Iliad, that’s how I’d start the great epic -and make a myriad of scholars puke on their lyres!

          I get a bit odd around 5.20am. Too early for my meds…

          Like

          • atomou March 6, 2013 at 5:28 am #

            Particularly after I have spent nearly two hours talking to a lecturer from the Uni of Arkansas, on skype, about Euripides and Socrates and Zeus and the meaning of life and astrophysics and Iphigenia and the Spartans and the Athenians… all the while Mrs Ato calling me in her siren’s voice, STFU and come back to bed, you drongo!!!!
            I’m knackered! Exhausted even!

            Like

          • hudsongodfrey March 6, 2013 at 11:35 am #

            I was there once, but only because I got lost on my way elsewhere.

            I stopped to ask a woman for directions, and she told me that for fifty bucks she’d take me to paradise!

            I just wanted to know how to get to Albert Park! 🙂

            Like

  15. atomou March 6, 2013 at 5:49 am #

    That’s me, making a Baklava:

    Like

  16. atomou March 6, 2013 at 5:51 am #

    The Ukranians thought I didn’t shake the drink enough… go figure, ey?

    Like

    • paul walter March 6, 2013 at 9:22 am #

      Two things, that indicate my misanthropic nature.
      How many bottles got smashed learning it?
      How many panellist approvals were “noddies” inserted later to over egg the authenticity bit?

      Like

  17. paul walter March 6, 2013 at 8:38 am #

    Struth…what a REMARKABLE outburst from Atomou!
    It is interesting, the Greek myths, particularly as worked over by the Athenian playwrights, who get into the nitty gritty of altruism and self interest, social obligation and personal aspiration, family loyalties against communal loyalties.
    Iphigenia is similar to Antigone, another dutiful daughter who rises above petty human fallibility and this finds an equivalent the socialisation of young lads via the self sacrificing example of Achilles.

    Like

    • atomou March 6, 2013 at 9:00 am #

      Struth… what a REMARKABLE outburst from paul!
      Quite so, on all your observations, paul!
      And now that I went over my outburst, I’m utterly embarrassed!
      What a rant!
      But it was an excruciating couple of hours with the good letchurer. Grey haired like me but with a lot more of it. Head and face covered with the human fibres. Anyhow, I thought he’d never stop asking questions and was taking soooooo long when writing down his notes. I mean it was only morning for him but it was dream time for me…
      Bleh! It’s my fault though. I’ve put myself out there, so I’ve gotta cop the consequences. Still, when these folk are endowed with brains and awareness of time and place, it can be a brilliant experience.
      Lectured in Classics.

      Like

      • paul walter March 6, 2013 at 9:14 am #

        Oh no, friend…
        The Classics are beautiful but neglected, because they deal so intimately with ideas, value and meaning and have thus been at the undesirable end of the so called educational “reform” process that produces people capable of hammering nails into bits of wood without knowing why, or wanting to know why and even conditioned to despise wanting to know why.
        To think is the equivalent to being gay in the era of the new barbarism.
        The poor fellow must have felt like Robinson Crusoe, finally coming across some one else on the figurative island, to actually be able to talk about some thing real with another human also familiar with the language and pleasures of thinking.

        Like

  18. atomou March 6, 2013 at 4:08 pm #

    On the symbolism of clothes

    I remember, as a child –younger than 13- back in my tiny but gorgeous village, in Greece, when I was my grandfather’s altar boy and a devotee of religious mythology (the believers call it “theology”). I remember that wonderful man teaching me all about the symbolism of his priestly vestments (vestments, you must call them, not garments, nor clothes, nor costumes). One by one, he’d lay them on the table in the vestry and explain to me what each meant. (Poor guy his ambition that I, one day would follow to his pulpit was not too secretly expressed.)

    The same symbolism, of course, applies to the Catholic and Anglican vestments. Ask a priest or, better still, someone higher up in the catechistic hierarchy what each vestment is supposed to represent. The Alb, the Amice, the Biretta, the Camauro, the Cappa, the Cappa Magna… the Pectoral Staff… the Simar …*

    There is a reason why all this gear has been assembled and why it is designed so as to match the symbolism that it does. The cut, the colour, the lace, the place it is worn or carried. There is no way that the audience in the church, or in the streets of the Vatican or in a poor town, where the local shaman runs the place, there is no way that they will not associate the clothes on the man with the symbol and with the notion that is behind each of them. The magnetic pull of style-plus-symbol is just too great.

    Clothes are not simply clothes. And that’s why it was a no brainer for Freud and Jung and all the other psychobabblers to come up with their “unconscious” symbols: They are there as blatant as a cigar poking out of a starlet’s wet lips, glossed by the brightest of red lipstick. They are there, as blatantly as a sports car with a bonnet that sticks out for some meters past the driver’s seat.

    So, clothes, whether we like it or not are not just clothes; they are also symbols, messengers: of wealth, of poverty, of ambition, of desires, of freedom, of slavery…
    And yes, one might well also observe that these symbols, these messages are observed by the viewer and not by the wearer, particularly if the wearer is a young, innocent child, totally bereft of the ability to make such observations; and, so if there is an aberrant reading of those symbols, messages and signals then that is not in the head of the wearer but in that of the observer. After all, anyone can think what they like and no one else can know what these thoughts are.

    Not the fault of the wearer, we may validly say.

    However, there, within that space between the viewer and the wearer is where my apprehension lies. There, in that space, is the precipice of doubt that pulls back the reins of my approbation. There, within that precipice is the place where my instincts tighten their grip on my guts; and there, within that doubt, is the problem.

    Because, whether the problem is with the wearer or the viewer, that is irrelevant. The problem is that there is a problem and when there is a problem one must take care. More so when the person in danger of that aberrant reading, that problem, is a child or someone made vulnerable by illness or disability.

    At such time, I go for erring on the side of the vulnerable. And I go hard. Rush to protect them, as a parent, a teacher, a neighbour, a fellow human. It is, I believe indubitably, how it should be: the strong must protect the weak. Protect first, ask questions later because the problem makers have the upper hand in terms of timing. They shoot first. In pornification, in sexualisation, in commodification, in slave making. And they shoot to kill.

    My profuse apologies if this diatribe is just a diatribe and it’s just too long. (Stream of consciousness sort of stuff. Totally unfetterable, I’m afraid.) It may be removed, of course if it offends on any count.

    ———
    * http://www.catholicdoors.com/courses/roman.htm

    Like

    • paul walter March 6, 2013 at 5:41 pm #

      What’s a diatribe, amongst friends?
      Fwiw, I believe there is a very deep impulse within people, most significant in its danger in the patriarchal and controlling locii of power. Corporations, politicians and bureaucrats indeed DO want to discover what makes us tick, employ many behavioural science people and vast amounts of money to solve the riddle and try all sorts of tricks to accomplish the end of controlling others from the inside out, with therefore little evidence therefore to show for that.
      Whether it does damage in the long run or not, I think it matters not a jot to them.
      If they use cluster bombs against kids for a buck and employ complex psychological torture to reduce the likes of dissenters like Brad Manning to a state of uncomprehending mush, they are not about to worry about a few kids fiddled by delinquents within protected institutions.
      The other side of the issue is the employ of scare campaigns to convince people to vote for authoritarianism.
      As Hobsbawm said, we live in the Age of the death of cultural memory…no community, no traditions of caritas, just ill informed and manipulated isolated individuals mindlessly consuming in a giant cognitive market place. We need to think about the role of censorship in a society in flux like ours.
      The links of community will be broken by authoritarianism because of what authoritarianism protects.
      There will be no protection for children or anyone else in a brain dead society based on privilege and theft.

      Like

    • helvityni March 7, 2013 at 8:49 am #

      Clothes matter in the real world; why else would any girl wear her best suit and smart shoes to a job interview, and something pretty and sexy and high heels to a party. If you are single and you want come home with the bloke you fancy, you want to attract his attention.

      When I see a girl of ten in high heels wearing a padded bra in a playground, I think the poor thing can’t run or play and might even break her leg when trying…
      Someone else with a sick mind sees something else….

      Like

      • hudsongodfrey March 7, 2013 at 9:15 am #

        I think you’re right, and let’s face it there aren’t a lot of us who don’t look better in our clothes than out of ’em.

        Not that I’m conducting a survey, but do you really see a lot of ten year olds dressed as you described. I don’t think I’ve ever seen any.

        The only padded bra I ever really noticed on a schoolgirl was when the local high school had dress ups day and one of the young ladies turned up as Lara Croft, in the shorts tight t-shirt and boobs that I’m sure weren’t all hers. She was noticeable, and although I really hope she had a great day my own awareness of how society judges appearances in any context saddens me to wonder whether she wasn’t made entirely miserable by others for no particularly good reason.

        Like

        • helvityni March 7, 2013 at 10:19 am #

          Yes, Hudson, I see them, many of them in shopping malls in the west…I feel like holding their hand as I fear they might stumble going down the escalators in their high heels.

          There is a strange custom creeping into Oz, most likely from USA; the primary schools now have FORMALS, end of the year parties. Boys of 11 to12 year old dressed in suits and white shirts, girls in glittery outfits, hair done and with make-up. I find it totally strange, let kids have fun, but please don’t make them into mini adults.

          Like

          • hudsongodfrey March 7, 2013 at 12:22 pm #

            I think I see where this is headed…I need only mention the topic…

            Baby Beauty Pageants!

            Okay GO!

            Like

            • Hypocritophobe March 7, 2013 at 12:42 pm #

              Someone should sue Barbie and Dolly Parton.

              Like

              • helvityni March 7, 2013 at 1:06 pm #

                Hypo, I prefer nine yaer old girls reading good books, kicking the ball in the park, building cubbyhouses, MAKING clothes for ordinary dolls, not nagging mum to buy new party outfits for Barbie and Ken, some sequined tops.

                The books can be classic adult books, I never saw any harm kids reading them…

                Like

                • Hypocritophobe March 7, 2013 at 1:18 pm #

                  I agree Helvi.But popping out kids is the easy bit.If the parents are handing down inadequate skills to their kids, the harm of bad parenting and judgement skills perpetuates.
                  When govts reward the number of babies produced we have lost the plot.
                  I think that although your aspiration is a good one, it is probably too late to turn this aircraft carrier around.
                  Handing out cash (even for school bonuses) exacerbates the problem.You should condemn this process.Even though you know who enacted that little pork barrel.
                  Our populations are growing quicker than the parenting skills can cope with.
                  And as you can see we still haven’t addressed the current problems,let alone the snowball effect.
                  The only solution I can see is making your house into a fortress,because when a lot of these mismanaged kids hit the teens and discover meth>???

                  Like

  19. atomou March 6, 2013 at 9:12 pm #

    If anyone thought that Baillieu’s cranium was occupied by hot air, he’ll look like Einstein compared to Nephthine.

    Like

    • hudsongodfrey March 6, 2013 at 10:04 pm #

      I suppose Reith will be singing his praises by tomorrow morning, just as he was Baillieu’s this morning. They’ve done something that they’ve tried to cover up. I suspect this may not be the last we hear of it.

      Like

      • atomou March 6, 2013 at 10:18 pm #

        I think what they’ve done is a depucelation job on each other, with one of them not wearing a condom.
        Reith has had the job done on him when he was little quire boy. Been bitter and twisted ever since. I don’t know of anyone more phlegmatic than that creature. Probably still sitting on it.

        Like

  20. atomou March 6, 2013 at 10:20 pm #

    Stinking bloody hot again tonight in Melbourne. Bloody unbearable!

    Like

    • atomou March 7, 2013 at 8:53 pm #

      And again TONIGHT!
      It’s a hellish hole around here!

      Like

      • doug quixote March 7, 2013 at 9:33 pm #

        Never mind atomou, it’ll soon be winter, and you can complain about the 0 degree mornings and dreary days . . . 🙂

        Like

        • paul walter March 7, 2013 at 9:47 pm #

          Not so Doogie. Adelaide and Melbourne ( and Perth, I think) are shit at the moment for quite long spells of humid, stale weather.
          At least during the summer the weather had the decency to do its 42 C days without humidity and then clear off before it out wore its welcomes.
          You people north of the Murray ought to take back your shitty subtropical weather instead of having it wander down here.
          Ructions next election, I warn you- we vote, too.

          Like

          • atomou March 7, 2013 at 10:18 pm #

            DQ, quite possibly! I hate extreme weather. All weather should like that of Crete. Mild. From mildly cold (and dry) to mild (and dry) to mildly hot (and dry). Poifect! Incidentally, I come from the North. Thessaloniki. Shit weather but mildly so. Humidity knocks me about. Humidity and sludge!

            Like

  21. Hypocritophobe March 6, 2013 at 10:44 pm #

    “Feel so sad got a lonely mind
    I’m so lonesome all the time…..”

    Hahahahaahahaha

    Gold

    Yep,there’s more to come.

    Obeids tentacles,crossing borders perhaps???

    “Where the folks are fine
    And the world is mine”

    OMF? THis is Sooooooooo funny

    Like

  22. atomou March 7, 2013 at 9:49 am #

    I think the vipers in the Melbourne Club are stirring.

    Shit, if we don’t see some serious mortalities in our political scene -and soon!- I’ll be most aghasted! Astonishéd even, as Shakespeare would have it.
    The key on poor Overland’s filing cabinet has turned and its contents are about to be spilled on the floor. All eyes will first fall on Peter Ryan and then they’ll do the dance of the chickens in the chook house and the rat among the pigeons while the cat runs amok among the desiccated corpses of goannas and through the orifices of the sacred Halloween pumpkins!

    Oh, the glorious fun that politics can be!
    And idiots want you to be theologically loyal to one lot over the other, so that you can go to heaven when you die! Can they not see that gods in politics are as rare as virgins in heaven?

    And now a prayer to Zeus:
    Zeus almighty! Aim your bolts of thunder at this den of poisonous serpents and don’t let anyone build a tebah: there is not a Moses nor a Noah among them, Zeus, so turn the lot into cinders first and flood their ashes afterwards!

    A bit harsh?
    Amazing what a shot of ouzo will do to a brain!

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe March 7, 2013 at 10:39 am #

      I wonder how long the Feds will be able to keep a lid on the reasons behind Baillieus dumping?
      The phones must be melting down.
      It’s almost as bizarre as Gillards goldfish bowl visit to the west.
      I’m surprised they didn’t shoot the whole farce in a studio with actors praising her every move.It would have worked better.

      (Here’s one I prepared earlier
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westworld)
      And who knows,they may have even been able to find an actor who didn’t choke on the words,
      “I think the PM is doing a good job.”
      Or maybe not.That would be a stretch.Most actors have convictions.

      Still, maybe Mr Howes could get a programmed robot to sing Julias praises,instead.Oh that’s right HE is the trained robot!
      K9, the leg humper.
      Woof woof.

      Like

      • atomou March 7, 2013 at 9:05 pm #

        No good, Hypo, ye olde Yul is cactus now. Long Gone Cactus, they call ‘I’m. Fastest cactus in the Undies world.
        Perhaps and peut-être, Stephen Fry could be asked kindly. Oh, convictions, you said. Yes, he has them. Bugger! I think it could be valid form of punishment to force Sophie Mirabella to take up that role of praising Julia. And force her also, beforehand, to learn Grotowski’s “Method Acting.”
        The worse that could happen is that the farce would turn into a comedy. Tolerable, I’d say, under the circumstances!

        Like

        • Anonymous March 7, 2013 at 9:28 pm #

          “Whatever ya do,don’t smoke!”

          Like

  23. atomou March 7, 2013 at 10:06 pm #

    I don’t. I just take drugs: for cholesterol, for diabetes, for blood pressure, for stupidity… all sorts of drugs; which prohibit me from taking drugs! A druggy just can’t win!

    Oh… Now I get it! Steve McQueen! Bugger! That was a tad too subtle – for a druggie!
    What a fantastic ad that was, ey? But the baccy companies said, “oh, no! What a pitty! It’s too long. We just can’t broadcast it” and then they turned to… hell what was the name of that bastard who kept slashing good films to shreds with his endless inane ads about watches? No problem about him crapping on for hours on end between three minutes of film! Bastards!

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe March 7, 2013 at 10:57 pm #

      That’s quite a list of mechanical failures.
      Obviously olive oil is over rated.(And I am not talking about Pop-eyes skinny girlfriend)

      Like

      • atomou March 7, 2013 at 11:28 pm #

        More, I believe, a case of Big Pharma taking over from the Tobacco Companies than any real mechanical failure or bodily malfunction. All of these decisions are made by statistics: “On average, the sugar reading should somewhere around 5-6.” Bullshit. If reading can do anything at all, then it probably ought to be somewhere around 12-14 but, “if we tell them the truth about that, nobody will buy our shit, so let’s frighten them. Tell ’em it needs to be 5, or 4 even, or 3…” And so it goes with the rest of the numbers.
        But the mrs is a nurse…

        Like

        • Hypocritophobe March 7, 2013 at 11:32 pm #

          And everything we eat is laced with salt and sugar. + or -, and then reversed to neutralise the effects.

          ???????????

          Anyway stop it,Ato.Your raising my BP.
          I like to save that for lecturing the ‘lemming’ meringues.

          Like

  24. atomou March 7, 2013 at 10:19 pm #

    Shhhhh. Mrs Ato is on her way from work. Better turn up the charm.

    Like

  25. http://mobile-ngage.blogspot.com/ July 31, 2013 at 9:43 am #

    Amazing! Its actually remarkable post, I have got much clear
    idea concerning from this paragraph.

    Like

  26. web site August 7, 2013 at 7:24 pm #

    You actually make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this matter to be really something which I feel I might by
    no means understand. It seems too complicated
    and very huge for me. I am having a look forward to your subsequent publish, I will try to
    get the cling of it!

    Like

  27. dental treatments September 29, 2013 at 12:31 pm #

    Way cool! Some very valid points! I appreciate you
    writing this write-up and also the rest of the site is very good.

    Like

  28. Babak Azizzadeh reviews October 10, 2013 at 3:42 pm #

    But you’re the health officer, ain’t you? Once concentration is dr.
    babak azizzadeh reputation diverted to another area, such as copies of records, prescriptions
    or billing. Providers dr. babak azizzadeh reputation need to control
    the muscles. Several employees do notpresent an authentic excuse.
    With milk, doesn’t she? He moved in with me. They don’t hand the patient over to the drugstore.
    At the end dr. babak azizzadeh reputation of The War Games in which the placenta
    grows into the uterus. But as a story about where imagination can take you, it’s unsurpassable.

    Like

  29. sytropin October 17, 2013 at 10:25 pm #

    It’s nearly impossible to find well-informed people
    in this particular topic, however, you seem like you know what you’re
    talking about! Thanks

    Like

  30. Office Depot Promo Codes March 3, 2014 at 1:14 pm #

    Article writing is also a excitement, if you be acquainted with afterward you can
    write if not it is difficult to write.

    Like

  31. best social media agencies August 29, 2014 at 11:00 am #

    I’m not sure exactly why but this blog is loading incredibly slow for
    me. Is anyone else having this problem or is it a issue on my end?
    I’ll check back later and see if the problem still exists.

    Like

  32. best social media firms August 29, 2014 at 11:29 am #

    What i do not understood is in fact how you’re now not actually much more neatly-preferred
    than you might be now. You are very intelligent. You realize therefore significantly in the case
    of this matter, made me in my view consider it from numerous numerous angles.
    Its like men and women don’t seem to be involved unless it is one thing to do with Lady gaga!
    Your personal stuffs nice. At all times deal with it up!

    Like

  33. halloween jokes and riddles September 13, 2014 at 3:23 am #

    I’m not that much of a online reader to be honest but your blogs really
    nice, keep it up! I’ll go ahead and bookmark your website to come back
    in the future. Cheers

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 59th Down Under Feminists’ Carnival - April 5, 2013

    […] Wilson at No Place for Sheep, writes “If you see a child as “sexualised” there’s something wrong with your vision” *trigger warning for discussion of […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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

%d bloggers like this: