"Victoria’s Secret is selling mindless sexbotism to pubescent girls..."

[bloom]

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/

also:

An "extreme V-string" marketed to 11 year olds with "love pink" printed on it by any other name would be as icky.

http://mollysavestheday.blogspot.com/2006/01/extreme-v-string-marketed-to-11-year.html


extended article:

http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/money/sexy/index.html

"...For Gordon, another volunteer at the drop-in, the majority of images he sees of women in the media aren’t helping young men to respect women:

“The magazine shows it in a sexualized way, that makes it hard for a man like me –or any man– to go out there in the world and see another woman, wearing that skirt, going to work, going to do her thing. It makes me look at her in the way I saw her in the magazine or on the TV.”

“I think that boys are losing more and more respect for women on a daily basis,” says Nima."

http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/money/sexy/boys.html

[kalibex]

1. The thought occurs to me...

No one is exactly forcing parents to buy 'age-inappropriate' underwear for their children.


-B

[OldLeftieLawyer]

2. Exactly

More than ever, parents have choices - and issues like this (if you can even call it an "issue") is a great opportunity to talk with your children.

Don't blame the vendors or the marketing people. Kids are parents' responsibilities, no one else's.

[cally]

3. Yes, but the advertisers push the products

A parent can say no but if you read the article then many tweens just change at school. (I know I did when I was that age.) The key is to change the culture so sexualization of tweens is not acceptable.

A quote from the article:

“I suspect that the advertisers would tell you ‘we’re doing this because there’s a demand for it,’” says Graydon. “They sort of escape –or avoid– acknowledging that they have created the demand… It really disturbs me.”

http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/money/sexy/marketing.html

[OldLeftieLawyer]

4. In my experience as a parent, the key is

to raise kids who respect what you say and who don't sneak around about stuff like this. The key is treating our children with respect for themselves, for others, and, most importantly, respect for honesty and truthfulness.

Sure, kids are suggestible little beings, but they're stronger and less likely to cave to that kind of commercial pressure when they've got a strong foundation at home, where everything can be discussed.

It's too easy to blame others, when, in fact, the work needs to be done in our homes. That's where our children learn almost everything they need to deal with life, and that's our responsibility as parents.

It's not easy.

[alarcojon]

11. Your quote also jumped out at me

It is not at all clear to me that advertisers are just filling a demand, and not in fact creating one. Actually I'm sure there is some of both.

Living in a capitalist society as we do, it is pretty difficult to stop people from producing these items or advertisers from promoting them. So, as you say, we have to change the culture so that the sexualization of increasingly younger girls is seen as wrong. People will only stop marketing this crap to tweens if there is no money to be made off of it.

All of this is not to remove the burden from parents - but we also have to acknowledge that they are swimming against a very powerful current.

[bloom]

6. You're right that people don't have to buy it

But another reason to post such a thing is to say - "buy it if you want to - but I think it is damn ridiculous" - not that that has to matter to you.

But I think if other people know that a lot of people think that it is damn ridiculous - they might think twice before they think that other people will think they are the "coolest" or something because their 8 year old wears a push=up bra.


There also was the issue of the "Pink" thing (the word that would be on their behinds - sweatpants, etc.) having a link to "Hustler" - a meaning which many people would not know about - and to tell you the truth - I don't know about it either. I don't know if that is really an issue here or not. Supposedly men would be reading more into this phenomena than many women or girls would. If it is a thing and girls didn't know it was a thing - I would find that esp. creepy.

[cally]

9. What does the 'pink' thing mean?

I have no idea. I confess that both my teens have bought stuff from Victoria's Secret. No way would they wear anything with writing on it. They bought it because it was the only store that sold underwear in a size zero. They don't buy thongs, just cotton bikini pants that I think are appropriate. They are not suggestive IMHO. Otherwise they could only find little girl panties which is embarassing when you are 15 and 18. As they got larger then they started buying at more appropriate, blue, cheaper stores.

[bloom]

13. see: urban dictionary

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pink


This site is the go-to site for this kind of thing.

(I should have thought of it earlier).

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cally]

15. Thanks...nat as bad as it could have been

I should have thought of that site, also. It's a good resource.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ismnotwasm]

5. What's creepy about it

To me.

When I had my grandson while my daughter was deployed I spent quite a bit of time sitting in his kindergarten class. One of the little girls nearly always came to school dressed, oh, either with maroon weaves, a boa decorated lower cut top, low rise pants-- usually you could see her panties, I don't remember If they were thongs or not. She got in trouble for bringing lip gloss to school. (Mostly because she would wipe it on the other children. Always dressed more like a teenager, yet, almost, but --not-- quite-- sexualized. The creepy part? My whole soul was screaming "grooming" possible sexual abuse at home. She had extreme behavioral issues and had already developed that dead eyed look some children obtain as defense against showing emotions. She was 5 years old. She taught my grandson, among other children what "humping" was, (not that they wouldn't have learned eventually, but my daughter was quite surprised when my grandson told her he knew how they had sex in Texas) and at times was sexually inappropriate.

I understand parents make the choices for their children part. But speculating on WHY they make those choices makes me shudder.

I never knew the extent of what the interventions with the girl was, I do know they worked very hard with her. I met her mother, and she seemed to be a very nice, hard working women, who came to school as often as she could when her daughter had a meltdown.

[bloom]

7. that is very creepy

It does sound like she was abused. Or maybe they had porn on in the house all the time - that wouldn't be very great, either. :shrug:


It's one thing for girls to enjoy dressing up - I can see girls liking "boas" for instance...

But yeah - there is no reason to teach girls that worth is equal to their sex appeal - at 5 !!!! :eyes: :crazy: :eyes:

[ismnotwasm]

12. Exactly.

And that's what it boils down to. Even though this particular little girl seemed to be a poster child for some sort of sexual abuse at home, the idea instilled in little girls need to be sexy = worth in the absence of such behavior by the parents-- still creepy.

And one of the sad things is, sexual expression is still so twisted at this point of time. Women still carry the onus of being sexy as worth, even as we learn to find our sexual selves and true sexual freedom. The media onslaught we by into of what is sexy, pretty, attractive to men still controls our spending power. It's in certain cooperate interests to maintain control over what people find attractive. But as has been pointed out, we do have a choice not to play. But realizing that is very difficult for folks, evidently. Part of my "job" (for me) as a feminist is to tell young women to love the body they're in, even as they diet, date, do what ever they need to do for percieved self improvement. Since I work in nursing, I get plenty of opporunity, and I'm oftened heartened at the the strength young women are showing in what is a trational "women's job" I don't preach, but if the topic comes up....I amuse them (they don't seem to be used to the word "feminist") and they like to talk about it I've found.

I was talking to a young women last night who has legs like mine-- very muscular, especially in the calf area. In the summer time, I'll usually wear shoes that lift the back part of my heel. To me, it defines the muscle and is "sexy" although my legs aren't not traditionally sexy at all. This young women wears high heeled pumps. Always. Except at work. She was telling me she wore them pregnant. ARRGH! ( I teased her and told her how high heel pumps pushes out the bosom and butt and imitates readiness to mate)

[bloom]

16. Flashback to the 50's - "She Too Can Join the Man-Trap Set"

"Then American girls began getting married in high school. And the women's magazines, deploring the unhappy statistics about these young marriages, urged that courses on marriage, and marriage counselors, be installed in the high schools. Girls started going steady at twelve and thirteen, in junior high. Manufacturers put out brassieres with false bosoms of foam rubber for little girls of ten. And one advertisement for a child's dress, sizes 3-6x, in the New York Times in the fall of 1960, said: "She Too Can Join the Man-Trap Set."


I noticed this in the online version of:

The Feminine Mystique: Chapter 1

"The Problem that Has No Name"

Betty Friedan

http://www.h-net.org/~hst203/documents/friedan1.html