www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europ...ar-sexy-clothes.html

At Lycée Condorcet d'Arcachon in Gironde, 200 students marched throught the town to protest against a new dress code, which stated that students could not wear low-slung trousers, short skirts or piercings. "We're at school, we don't want to feel like we are in a prison," one student said.

What's happening to France? I remember a couple of years ago the mayor of Paris told women sunbathing along the Seine to 'cover themselves up'. This summer, the French press were raving over the fact that so few women go topless on the beaches these days, a healthy contrast to the 'immoderation' of the past. It is now illegal in France to publish pictures of 'excessively' slim women or photos of women that have been 'digitally airbrushed'.

Feminism? Islam? Whatever the reasons, hopefully this protest is the start of the revolution!

haven't they always dressed sexily..if somewhat stylishly ?..unlike the Italians who just look dead sexy and bugger the style.

It depends how young the teens are. If they are 13-14, then I don't think it is a good idea to sexualize them. I don't think girls of 13-14 are old enough to deal with the responsibilities of sex. I find it quite disturbing that girls as young as 11 or 12 go around wearing crop tops with slogans like 'hands off' or sexy girl on them. Children grow up too fast as it is without all this pressure to dress 'sexually'. Shops like top-shop should take the lead and not aim such clothes at young teens.

It depends how young the teens are. If they are 13-14, then I don't think it is a good idea to sexualize them. I don't think girls of 13-14 are old enough to deal with the responsibilities of sex. I find it quite disturbing that girls as young as 11 or 12 go around wearing crop tops with slogans like 'hands off' or sexy girl on them. Children grow up too fast as it is without all this pressure to dress 'sexually'. Shops like top-shop should take the lead and not aim such clothes at young teens.

Does it not interest you whether the girls taking part in these protests are 13 or 14? I notice your sleight of hand in moving from '13-14' to 11 year old girls wearing 'hands off' t-shirts.

Do you consider the psychological effects of desexualising teenage girls, and consider the possibility that this may be as damaging for them as sexualising 10 year olds is for prepubescent girls?

In fact is there any scientific or rational argument at all in your words here? Girls start puberty in the UK now between ages 10 and 12. All the scientific evidence suggests this is due to improved nutrition. Whether ot not this is a 'good thing' or not, I would be disturbed if you don't place any consideration at all on the possible damaging effects of forcefully desexualising sexual beings.

Incognito wrote:


In fact is there any scientific or rational argument at all in your words here? Girls start puberty in the UK now between ages 10 and 12. All the scientific evidence suggests this is due to improved nutrition. [/quote]

Improved nutrition is bringing on puberty earlier, give me a break? Where is this evidence. I believe that puberty is been brought on earlier because of all the hormones in the fast food that pre-teens/teenagers seem to live on. Girls may start puberty between 10 (highly unlikely!) and 12, but they won't have finished it till much later on, say 15 or 16.

re: puberty. as I recall 25 years ago, there were a few girls in my year who needed bra's before leaving junior school at 11, and most if not all were 'well on their way' by their 13th birthday. As a boy I started sprouting pubes at 11, my voice broke by my 13th birthday and I started on the porn mags at 12. In contrast, I had some male friends who's balls had only just dropped by the time we did our GCSE's

Where is the evidence that girls are starting puberty due to hormones in Buger King?? Having said that hormones in food, water, and the environment probably do play a role, just as they are playing a role in men's diminished sperm count.

Improved nutrition is the explanation most often given by scientists. Seems that puberty is triggered when a certain size is reached, and as nutrition is far better, or perhaps far more excessive than ever before, children are bigger sooner and begin puberty earlier.

It's hard to believe and somewhat shocking that girls are starting puberty at 10 but it's definately true. Until recently I lived in the next street to a primary school and many of the older girls I passed by had clearly began puberty, sometimes VERY clearly.

www.livescience.com/health/070904_bad_puberty.html

Precocious puberty is defined as the onset of puberty before age 7 or 8 in girls or age 9 in boys. There is a range, and this has been part of the problem of establishing the "normal" age of puberty. Girls might enter full-blown puberty anytime between ages 9 and 15; boys between 11 and 17.

Complicating matters further are racial differences. On average, African American girls show signs of puberty, with breast development and chemical changes in their bodies, almost two years sooner than white girls, at age 8.8. This is according to the largest study on precocious puberty, involving over 17,000 girls, by Marcia Hermann-Giddens of the University of North Carolina, published in 1997 in the journal Pediatrics. By age 8, nearly 50 percent of the black girls but only 15 percent of the white girls had begun pubertal development.

who cares when puberty kicks in ?

..well just about everyone of course.The lawmakers are intent on denying it and now have parents completely befuddled. But it's advertisers who are responsible for the way kids dress these days. And that's what is so dreary...nothing kids wear anymore is original..it's all come out of some mass manufacturing and advertising factory and kids respond accordingly like good little consumers.

Even weirder is the law in France that forbids woman wearing bhurkas in the street ?...what about stylish ladies who wear veils ?