30% of Girls' Clothing Is Sexualized in Major Sales Trend

[n2doc]

Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior WriterDate: 20 May 2011 Time: 10:36 AM ET


Clothes marketed to young kids often mix adult elements like padded tops with childlike flourishes like flowers or polka dots, a new study finds.
CREDIT: © Poznyakov | Dreamstime.com

Almost a third of girls' clothing for sale at 15 major retailers has sexualizing characteristics, a new study finds, a trend that psychologists say can encourage girls to view themselves as sex objects at an early age.

The majority of sexualized clothes also had childlike characteristics, such as polka dots, the research found. Nonetheless, adults in the study rated these childish but sexualizing clothes as just as sexy as clothes with only sexualizing features.

"Even though parents might see them as more acceptable , I'm not sure they're perceived that differently," study researcher Sarah Murnen, a social psychologist at Kenyon College in Ohio, said of the clothes that mixed sexuality and girlishness.


more
http://www.livescience.com/14249-girls-clothing-sexualized.html

[yella_dawg]

1. Prost-a-tot Fashions.

[seabeyond]

2. we gotta get our girls to believe (and we are well on our way) they are porn material

that is their role in life and boys role to be entertained by them.

[KoKo]

52. Absolutely...has anyone watched Cable TV Daytime, these days?

Oooo...Lah...Lah.. And our lovely anchorwomen showing leg and heels. This is good for women to show off their sexuality. It started at Fox. We are past the days of "women dressing in feminine suits" with appropriate length skirts of even the EWWWW "Business Pant Suit."

Let it ALL HANG OUT! Our little girls are but pawns to catch a good boyfriend or be Bristol Palin and have a baby early and write a book about it and make billions. Or, get a drug habit and get in the Tabloids and the media will make Zillions off following you around.

It's really our new society. Women have cast off the Womens' Liberation Movement and are now INTO WHO THEY ARE! Why shouldn't their kids dress like what they all see on TV or the Magazine covers in the grocery store. What's wrong with it?

[LongTomH]

3. Why would ANY parent actually buy something like this for their child?

This has been happening for years. What's driving it? Is the fashion industry run by pervs?

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. If the clothes did not sell, that would be the end of it.

[murielm99]

8. I am told that it is hard to find anything else for

little girls.

Some parents do object, and are frustrated when they try to shop. And many elementary schools try to discourage some of the more suggestive clothing.

Maybe parents and schools need to issue stronger statements. Of course, that should be coupled with parents refusing to buy that crap.

My daughters are adults, but I have taught and subbed, so I have heard the complaints.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. This took me a whopping 3 seconds to find:

http://www.carters.com/carters/toddler-girl-swim-shop-suits/carters-toddler-girl-suits,default,sc.html

[Wait Wut]

17. That's BS

I shop for my friend's two little girls all the time and find beautiful clothes that are friggin' age appropriate. I've heard that "that's all I can find" crap before. A co-worker would dress her little girl like she was headed to a club (the kid was 3-5). Then she'd show pics to all of us and beam about how "grown-up" her little girl looked in that halter top!! Thankfully, her husband put his foot down when she wanted to put the kid in pageants. My co-worker pouted for about a month.

You are correct that schools need to be more forceful. The parents are the ones buying this crap, so I don't have much hope for them. In fact, our local MS and HS revised their dress code last year and several parents went ballistic.

[krabigirl]

20. Uh no. There are plenty of other choices.

My DD is 4 and tall for her age, so she is in regular kid clothes now, and yes, I dress her like a normal little girl. I do see the other fashions, but I just don't buy them or assume theyare for 12-year-olds.

[murielm99]

58. LOL.

I knew it would take about fifteen minutes for at least three indignant replies.

I don't even have a stake in this.

I do wish elementary schools would take a stronger stand, though. Maybe if they sent a few little girls home and inconvenienced their parents, it would make a difference.

I did teach at a middle school where they either sent girls home, or make them dress in baggy sweats, provided by the school nurse, for the rest of the day. That school did not allow any bare midriffs or visible thongs.

They sent boys home, too, for pants on the ground.

I see nothing wrong with a sensible dress code. I am sure there are people here who will fight me on that, too.

[Dr Fate]

5. Check out this from 1974

Seems like this "trend" of bathing suits for kids has been in the works for some time.

I do understand the point of the article, but a child wearing a two piece bathing suit is hardly anything new, or "sexual."

[pnwmom]

7. I don't think the old two-piece are like the new bikinis

except for the fact that you need to use sunscreen on your tummy for either one.

[Dr Fate]

19. I see little or no diff. between my 1974 pic and the one in the OP's photo.

Having said that- I do get the point of the article.

It makes more sense to go after Britney Spears style school clothes-but bathing suits- which are supposed to be designed to allow exposure to sun and water?

A minor point- carry on!

[Gormy Cuss]

36. 1) The styling of the top in the OP photo is more adult 2) it appears that the bottom is skimpier

than the 1974 pattern, but it's hard to say for sure since the child is seated.

Little girl swimsuits rarely if ever had definition between the breasts like a bra -- a halter, square or scoop neckline was more typical and the only padding would be a liner. Bottoms tended to have higher waistlines and lower leg seams than similar styles for adult women.

[KoKo]

53. True...there's not that much difference in that and the Carter's clothes

the OP showed. But, there are some really kinky things out there in ads in the magazines and on the cables. So..I understand where the OP is coming from given that she's a younger mom, maybe and seeing stuff that bothers her.

[xmas74]

55. Those are cute.

The problem with the suit tops now is that many of them are padded. At least, I know I had problems with it.

Thank goodness my kid was on the swim team and had to wear uniforms or she would have been upset that she didn't get to wear what the other girls wore.

[wtmusic]

6. No link to the "study"

and I wonder if LiveScience considers their company to be an equal-opportunity employer - not much diversity here.


Jeanna Bryner, Managing Editor


Clara Moskowitz, Senior Writer


Wynne Parry, Senior Writer


Stephanie Pappas, Senior Writer


Rachael Rettner, Staff Writer


Jennifer Welsh, Staff Writer


Robin Nixon, Staff Writer

[DoBotherMe]

10. Looks like men are represented at the higest levels

Who knows why editor in chief, Robert Roy Britt, has hired so many women writers. He must have had a reason. Dana ; )

http://techmedianetwork.com/company/leadership.html

Jerry Ropelato
Chief Executive Officer

Stan Bassett
President

Mark Westlake
Chief Revenue Officer

Robert Roy Britt
Editor in Chief

Lee Stephenson
Chief Financial Officer

Michael Eltzroth
Vice President Business Development

Jared Page
Vice President Creative Development

Gerald Nichols
Vice President and Chief Information Officer

DeLonie Call
Vice President of Human Resources

Eric Richmond
Vice President of Search

Mark Fredrickson, APR
Director of Corporate Communications

[wtmusic]

13. That's the parent company.

If LiveScience wants to do an opinion piece, they should just call it "How Young White College-Educated Women Feel About Sexuality in Marketing", instead of trying to pass it off as science.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Don't even bother trying to get in front of that outrage train.

It's not worth it.

[Gormy Cuss]

38. Yes, sloppy omission on their part. Here's a citation:

Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts,T., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J.M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 269-284.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. So the study extrapolating the 'major trends' is from 13 years ago?

Did they have any opinion about the effects of Seinfeld, The Clinton Impeachment Process, and The Macarena on toddlers?

It is entirely possible that any 3, 4, and 5 year olds in that particular study may, indeed, be wearing 'sexy' swimwear... NOW.

[Gormy Cuss]

50. One cited study is from 13 years ago.

I'm sure there are others in the literature that are more recent, particularly from Frederickson. The study subjects in that study were college age BTW.

[AngryAmish]

9. Has anyone seen the mini Boden catalog?

It creeped me out. It has kids (girls mostly) in poses that one usually see in Vogue and all that. I wish I could describe it better but it is creepy.

I don't think lil AA is going to be in that one.

[krabigirl]

21. They are a British company. Clothes are overpriced there, but I never noticed creepy poses.

[JoePhilly]

11. What year is this copper tone girl from???

[Dr Fate]

22. 1944.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coppertone_girl

[SoCalDem]

23. true, but in that era, young toddler girls often went topless

and were not considered lewd. Many children went swimming in their underwear. Wartime meant little or no rubber for elastic, and cotton underwear was the "swimsuit" of most kids....and a "nice tan" was considered healthy then too..

[Dr Fate]

25. Sure- and that image remained a popular logo through the 1980's and beyond.

My only point being that if we were not "sexualizing" girls back then, then maybe it is still not the case now.

Apparently people in the 40's were less puritanical or guilt-ridden over this kind of harmless imagery. People did not think it was sexual.

Maybe the same should be true today?

It's just a cute toddler who is at the beach- in the OP as well as in the decades old advertisng icon. Anyone seeing more than that has a dirty mind. Shame on them, not shame on the swim suit maker's practical design.

I actually agree with some of the general points of the article. I just think discussing school clothes would make more sense than focusing on beach and swim-wear where the clothes are designed on purpose to expose the skin of the wearer to water & sun.

I'm not really arguing here, just making a minor point...

[SoCalDem]

27. I just started a thread with 7th grade class pics 1959-2009

The gradual changes are interesting:)

[Dr Fate]

28. I'd love to see it. Link us to it!

All I'm saying is that swim wear should not be the focus if you are trying to make this point- I generally agree with the main point of the article...

[SoCalDem]

33. linkie

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1143334

[Nay]

49. I agree there. Swimwear should NOT be an example of sexualized

clothing -- it's meant to be fairly revealing for everybody, so they can get some sun. There are much better examples.

[JoePhilly]

32. In the Copper tone ad, the little girl looks embarassed .... why?

I think the ad had a subtle, yet odd, message about "young girls".

The sexualization of kids is not a new idea.

[Dr Fate]

35. If you see something sexy, then that is what you see. I wont argue. n/t

n/t

[JoePhilly]

42. Does she not look embarassed?

And do you think that is not what the advertisers intended?

Hate to break the news, but children are sexual beings too. Their sexual identity tends to emerge well before puberty. And they do have some awareness of it.

[Chris_Texas]

46. But this reality must never ever ever EVER be mentioned

This is America, the land of Make Believe.

[xmas74]

57. The suit in the OP pic isn't what should be shown.

What should be shown are the suits I've found on the rack with a wired, padded top, a string bikini bottom with cutouts and glittery writing across the back for good measure. What sounds like an adult suit was actually a 6x that I found two weeks ago while shopping with a friend for her five year old daughter's suit.

When my daughter was very young she wore a swim bottom and no top. That was fine. It's the actual clothing that was aimed at five year old girls, beachwear included, that I balked at.

[Nay]

48. Hell, I went topless as a toddler in FL in the early 50's. It was very

common, and no one thought a thing about it. I didn't wear tops until I started school, and neither did any of my little girlfriends.

That said, I do agree that there are a lot of crappy ho clothes being sold for little girls -- but, as a grandma who shops for a 4-yr-old boy, I'm in the kids' clothing sections all the time and I see plenty of normal, non-sexualized clothing for little girls. I do believe the parents drive this hideous trend, and should be kicked in the ass for being creeps.

[SoCalDem]

60. amen.. girls who wear 4T don't need spandex, sparkles & feathers

unless it's Halloween :)

[KittyWampus]

56. That isn't a sexualized image.

[Shagbark Hickory]

12. Oh quit blaming the damn clothes.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. If you think a 2 piece bathing suit "sexualizes" a toddler, you've got a major fucking head problem.

:eyes:

[Chris_Texas]

26. Bingo

[boppers]

34. +1

I'll add that such thinking applies to most, if not all, clothing.

[gejohnston]

39. and going nowhere near my grand kids.

[krabigirl]

18. So 70% of clothing is normal then. Don't buy the sexy crap clothes if you don't like them.

Problem solved.

[Chris_Texas]

24. This"study" is complete crap.

Science does not speak in these terms. It does not dwell in the land of the subjective, or filter results through with religious or feminist moralizing before rendering opinions.

This crap is based on nothing more than "I know it when I see it" and followed up with "And I see it everywhere!"

[Chris_Texas]

29. 1 in 20 people live next door to a dangerous pervert. Not me though

I live next door to two smoking hot 12 year olds.

:rofl:

Kidding! After telling that joke I am definately not being raptured tomorrow.

[XemaSab]

37. I'm not being raptured either

I lol'd.

[petronius]

40. I LOL'd too. See ya Monday...

:)

[boppers]

30. Why aren't they wearing burquas?

You know, so children won't be too "sexy"?

[Chris_Texas]

31. They are working on it.

[LanternWaste]

41. Sex sells, we buy, and Madison Avenue knows it.

Sex sells, we buy, and Madison Avenue knows it. Yet at least Madison Ave. has a rationale (profits) to do it. :shrug:

Not that I'm one to cast judgments on Children Pageants or anything... I imagine, just like the branded clothing, they are quite benign and harmless, adding zero problems to the culture, and anyone who says different is simply a prude and uptight, trying to impose a nanny state on what we wear. :P

[Chris_Texas]

43. Sarcasm aside you are correct

[Odin2005]

44. Yuck!

[Chris_Texas]

47. What? Kids in sunglasses creep you out my friend?

Actually, looking closer, she does have a sort of demonic gleem in her eyes. Good catch.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

51. The photo in the OP... it's not the bikini, it's the lipstick.

That's what gives the inappropriate "pimped-out" vibe.

[xmas74]

54. So it's not just me?

I was quite upset with all the padding offered in size eight and ten girls tops a few years ago. I was also upset about some of the words printed on their clothes.

Everyone said I overreacted.

[NYC Liberal]

59. The problem is not a two-piece bathing suit.

The problem is the people getting aroused when they see children wearing such clothing.

Normal people do not have sexual thoughts when they see an 8-year old, even if the child is buck naked.