NationStates Jolt Archive

The very idea of aiming "sexualized" propaganda at CHILDREN is sickening. (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26040165/)

As stated in the article the media is not only making it harder for parents to raise their children as respectable members of society as opposed to the hedonistic, oversexed automatons many big businesses would have them be, but they are also aiming all these pornographic advertisements and campaigns to young children. And I'm talking young children, even toddlers. The very idea that a group of people would want to intentionally expose toddlers to this material is disgusting.

Thoughts?

wrong place.

This would go in the off-topic section, south, but still, ICK.

The article provides no example of what propaganda they're referring to.

Also:

Q: When should parents start addressing issues of sexuality with their kids? Is there a “too young” or “too soon”?

A: Actually, we need to begin when children are young — even at birth as we help babies feel good and experience pleasure from their bodies...

You think she could have chosen her words a little better, given the topic.

This was something I saw as a problem in Venezuela. Some of the children there were being exposed to very sexualized life, at a very young age. Many of them were wearing very skimpy clothes, at ages of 5 or 6. And I think that the mass sexualization in that country has led to some of its main societal problems (75% of kids are raised by their mom alone, for instance. Dad's are macho and don't settle down. They just go around and screw irresponsibly) This is a problem I see growing here in America. Sex is sold on everything, to everyone. It so rampant that people really don't even notice it being a problem any more, and if you do, you get called a prude. Which I am sure posters on here will reply very negatively to my comments, further proving my point.

Its one thing to inform your OWN children about sex, but its another issue completely when society is bombarding your kids with sex everywhere. Sex is a good thing, when done responsibly between consenting people. Sex being forced on people every where they go, is not a good thing. That is a big reason I refuse to watch many movies or cable television. I simply do not want to see sex in every tv show I watch.

/end rant.

its never been easy to raise your kids.

you have to protect them from this kind of crap. its what good parents DO.

its never been easy to raise your kids.

you have to protect them from this kind of crap. its what good parents DO.

QFT!!!

Nothing is easy in this life, especially the things that are "worth it". The problem is that people are always looking for an easy way out, whether it be raising kids, being in a relationship, in school, in sports, etc. Our society is full of people wanting the "easy way out".

More appalling than the advertising directed at children is the degree to which some parents participate in sexualizing their children. I've taught in grades K-6, and I have been truly horrified at some of the clothing that parents haven't allowed their children to wear to school. I've seen 10-year-olds in Juicy clothes with the word "Juicy" scrawled across the butt of their sweats. I've seen girls as young as 6 or 7 wearing shirts that said "flirt" on them, or other provocative words. Most schools have a dress code, but it's rarely the [I]kind/I] of clothes kids wear that causes a problem--they don't come to school in short skirts or skimpy outfits. It's the messages written on them that are so shocking. I really don't know what kind of parent sees a shirt that proclaims its wearer to be a "flirt" and decides that's a good message to brand on her 7-year-old child.

QFT!!!

Nothing is easy in this life, especially the things that are "worth it". The problem is that people are always looking for an easy way out, whether it be raising kids, being in a relationship, in school, in sports, etc. Our society is full of people wanting the "easy way out".

QFT. I encounter so many parents who more or less want the school to raise their kids. When you discuss unacceptable, disrespectful or worrisome behavior in their children, their response is usually "Well isn't it your job to teach them that?"

More appalling than the advertising directed at children is the degree to which some parents participate in sexualizing their children. I've taught in grades K-6, and I have been truly horrified at some of the clothing that parents haven't allowed their children to wear to school. I've seen 10-year-olds in Juicy clothes with the word "Juicy" scrawled across the butt of their sweats. I've seen girls as young as 6 or 7 wearing shirts that said "flirt" on them, or other provocative words. Most schools have a dress code, but it's rarely the [I]kind/I] of clothes kids wear that causes a problem--they don't come to school in short skirts or skimpy outfits. It's the messages written on them that are so shocking. I really don't know what kind of parent sees a shirt that proclaims its wearer to be a "flirt" and decides that's a good message to brand on her 7-year-old child.
my niece has 9 and 6 year old girls. their conservative irish grandmother buys them BIKINIS (not too too racy) to wear to the public beach!

my niece is not happy about that.

my niece has 9 and 6 year old girls. their conservative irish grandmother buys them BIKINIS (not too too racy) to wear to the public beach!

my niece is not happy about that.

That makes ... little sense. I mean, they don't have breasts!

Zilam - your statement that "75% of children in Venezuela are raised by their mothers alone" seems a little odd. Raised without the help of their fathers I can accept, but are you sure their mothers are still raising them alone? Particularly in a Hispanic nation, I'd expect them to have a lot of support from their relatives.

my niece has 9 and 6 year old girls. their conservative irish grandmother buys them BIKINIS (not too too racy) to wear to the public beach!

my niece is not happy about that.

I thought bikinis were standard swimwear for females.

I thought bikinis were standard swimwear for females.

Around here children wear one-peices. It's like a big right of passage to get your first bikini and used to it was something that happened when you were like 15. I've seen babies in bikinis now though so I guess it's not a huge deal anymore.

As far as the OP, I think it's the parent's job to put things into context. I feel like I'm doing an okay job of it. I hope I am.

As far as the OP, I think it's the parent's job to put things into context. I feel like I'm doing an okay job of it. I hope I am.

I'm sure you are.

In regards to bikinis vs. one-pieces, I don't go to the beach/pools much. I guess one-pieces would be a more conservative choice for girls, but I don't see bikinis as sexually alluring clothing. I understand how someone could see it as accentuating the areas it covers, but in a practical way I see them as just less restrictive and cooler (in the temperature sense).

I thought bikinis were standard swimwear for females.
not for 9 and 6 year olds if you are a careful parent.

its not the worst thing you can do but its unwise for the public beach.

I'm sure you are.

In regards to bikinis vs. one-pieces, I don't go to the beach/pools much. I guess one-pieces would be a more conservative choice for girls, but I don't see bikinis as sexually alluring clothing. I understand how someone could see it as accentuating the areas it covers, but in a practical way I see them as just less restrictive and cooler (in the temperature sense).
in a highly sexualized society you dont really want to dress your little girls in sexy adult clothing.

in a highly sexualized society you dont really want to dress your little girls in sexy adult clothing.

I don't know. Speaking purely from a pragmatic standpoint, wouldn't a child molester assess potential victims based more on opportunity and attentiveness of their guardian as opposed to what they're wearing?

I mean, I understand if you don't want your daughter wearing that kind of thing because it's inappropriate, but I don't think there's a safety risk attached to letting a young girl wear a two piece bathing suit.

I don't know. Speaking purely from a pragmatic standpoint, wouldn't a child molester assess potential victims based more on opportunity and attentiveness of their guardian as opposed to what they're wearing?

I mean, I understand if you don't want your daughter wearing that kind of thing because it's inappropriate, but I don't think there's a safety risk attached to letting a young girl wear a two piece bathing suit.
its a safety risk on lots of levels. yes it does signal to the deranged that this child isnt being carefully monitored--not a huge risk.

it also invites other people to tell her how sexy she looks. it invites HER to see herself as a sexy girl. it gives her the idea that she should always dress to attract. all sorts of things.

Around here, children wear one-pieces. It's like a big rite of passage to get your first bikini and it used to be that it was something that happened when you were like 15. I've seen babies in bikinis now, though, so I guess it's not a huge deal anymore.

As far as the OP, I think it's the parent's job to put things into context. I feel like I'm doing an okay job of it. I hope I am.

Not here. My sister, who is 24 years old this month, had her first bikini when she was like 2. This was more than 20 years ago in Ohio.

God, talking about stuff 20 years ago makes me feel like an old man. I'm 26, FFS.

That makes ... little sense. I mean, they don't have breasts!

Zilam - your statement that "75% of children in Venezuela are raised by their mothers alone" seems a little odd. Raised without the help of their fathers I can accept, but are you sure their mothers are still raising them alone? Particularly in a Hispanic nation, I'd expect them to have a lot of support from their relatives.

Without the help of their fathers is what I mean. Sorry. The grandmothers and such do usually help out a lot, and sometimes, if there is a grandfather around, they will help too. I remember thinking it was so weird when we ate at a lady's house for lunch one day. She kept parading her husband around, like he was a trophy. I asked the missionaries later why that was, and they proceeded to tell us that statistic. I don't know where they got it from, but just from being on the streets, I do say it seemed pretty accurate.

You think she could have chosen her words a little better, given the topic.
Should she have made mention of this?
http://books.google.com/
books?id=M3VYMwvDKwAC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=fetus+Dean+Edell+
masturbation&source=web&ots=9P6ZjdD-NT&sig=CsMkELUgKwVIq7FrjYAXa_Cjirw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=
book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
Obviously, add 'em up there ....

actually doing any parenting is so 1980s anyway...

actually doing any parenting is so 1980s anyway...

Yeah, where have you people been? Nobody ever expects anyone to be responsible unless they have lots of money or special training.

As a historian, I see this in a very historical (go figure) point of view... Personally I credit the moral degredation of American society to the end of the Cold War. It's precicely what happened to Rome after the Third Punic War... Rome became the unquestioned super power in the region and slipped into endless indulgence. The aristocrats lived lives of total luxary while the plebs lived in gross poverty... Something we see today with the whole "me" attitude. As soon as new rivals rose up, however, Roman virtues made a come back but eventually collapsed into decedance again.

Likewise, America's main rival, the Soviet Union, collapsed and now America is the only super power. With that, the fear of total destruction disappeared... And, as with Rome, America has slipped into an era of moral degradation and decadance. That's why I view China's rise in military and economic strength as a good thing for America, historically speaking.

If history has taught us one thing it's that all great civilizations require an equally great rival to maintain a sense of moral decency. Until the threat of total obliteration pushes Americans back to their senses, parents will just have to do their best to educate their children on the error of these advertisements and help to keep their self-esteem up by praising their children's strengths. Frankly, if I had a daughter... Even if she was fit to do it in every way imaginable.... I would NOT let her do beauty pagents (ever), wear make up (until she's a reasonable age), read Cosmo girl, seventeen, or any of those other teenage drama queen magazines, or even date until she's at least 16.

As a historian, I see this in a very historical [..

... ]or even date until she's at least 16.

Way to mantain historical perspective.

my niece has 9 and 6 year old girls. their conservative irish grandmother buys them BIKINIS (not too too racy) to wear to the public beach!

my niece is not happy about that.

Huh? What's wrong with that?
I admit, I would only be wearing bottoms until I was about 9 or 10 and my mom decided to go and buy bikini tops as well, but what's wrong with a bikini?

People have been complaining about the moral degradation of society since people had the first concept of a society. The fact that it hasn't reached a bottom yet suggests that the decline of society is merely evolution of society.

People have been complaining about the moral degradation of society since people had the first concept of a society. The fact that it hasn't reached a bottom yet suggests that the decline of society is merely evolution of society.

Or the pit is bottomless.

Or the pit is bottomless.

Glass half empty for you?

Glass half empty for you?

Oh, I'm sorry. Did I give the impression that I don't approve of a collapse into decadence?

I actually rather enjoy it. Oh and the glass is neither half empty nor half full. The glass is too big. *nod*

I actually rather enjoy it. Oh and the glass is neither half empty nor half full. The glass is too big. *nod*

"Excuse me? Is this my glass? I don't think so! My glass is full! And it's bigger too!" :p

Or the pit is bottomless.

Is modern society really more decadent, or just differently decadent?

As a historian, I see this in a very historical (go figure) point of view... Personally I credit the moral degredation of American society to the end of the Cold War. It's precicely what happened to Rome after the Third Punic War... Rome became the unquestioned super power in the region and slipped into endless indulgence. The aristocrats lived lives of total luxary while the plebs lived in gross poverty... Something we see today with the whole "me" attitude. As soon as new rivals rose up, however, Roman virtues made a come back but eventually collapsed into decedance again.

Likewise, America's main rival, the Soviet Union, collapsed and now America is the only super power. With that, the fear of total destruction disappeared... And, as with Rome, America has slipped into an era of moral degradation and decadance. That's why I view China's rise in military and economic strength as a good thing for America, historically speaking.

If history has taught us one thing it's that all great civilizations require an equally great rival to maintain a sense of moral decency. Until the threat of total obliteration pushes Americans back to their senses, parents will just have to do their best to educate their children on the error of these advertisements and help to keep their self-esteem up by praising their children's strengths. Frankly, if I had a daughter... Even if she was fit to do it in every way imaginable.... I would NOT let her do beauty pagents (ever), wear make up (until she's a reasonable age), read Cosmo girl, seventeen, or any of those other teenage drama queen magazines, or even date until she's at least 16.
*Claps, cheers*

Is modern society really more decadent, or just differently decadent?

Well, obviously no truly moral society ever sexualized a minor. I mean historically, what kind of truly righteous society would let anyone over eighteen marry anyone under fifteen? Never happened. :p

"Excuse me? Is this my glass? I don't think so! My glass is full! And it's bigger too!" :p

Pratchett, isn't that? I seem to recall it coming up in The Truth

*Claps, cheers*

Ah yes. Always remember kids, libertarian means "You can do whatever you want socially, as long as it doesn't offend my moral sense".

WTF!?!?!??! why is this an issue, leave the government and parent out of it, A kid will learn about that shit when they are ready, If a child learns of porn at age 10 so be it, as long as he learnd himslef, and his parents or government didnt show him

Ah yes. Always remember kids, libertarian means "You can do whatever you want socially, as long as it doesn't offend my moral sense".
No, it's more along the lines of: "You can do whatever you want, as long as you don't harm someone else without their consent"

But that's not the point of this thread, now is it?

The very idea of aiming "sexualized" propaganda at CHILDREN is sickening. (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26040165/)

As stated in the article the media is not only making it harder for parents to raise their children as respectable members of society as opposed to the hedonistic, oversexed automatons many big businesses would have them be, but they are also aiming all these pornographic advertisements and campaigns to young children. And I'm talking young children, even toddlers. The very idea that a group of people would want to intentionally expose toddlers to this material is disgusting.

Thoughts?

I skimmed that article and did not really see any examples of supposedly sexually oriented marketing to kids. If the author of that article was trying to convince the audience that there is a problem, they did a lousy job of it.

How are products marketed to children in a sexually inappropriate way? I just do not understand.

in a highly sexualized society you dont really want to dress your little girls in sexy adult clothing.

Is it just me or are children like incapable of dressing sexily. I mean, they are children. The very concept of a sexy kid is foreign and disturbing. Try as I may, I cannot get the "Tim and Eric Awesome Show Great Job" "Pierre"'s quote "Get sexy Kids. Doo dah do, Doo dah doo doo" out of my head while reading this post.

As a historian, I see this in a very historical (go figure) point of view... Personally I credit the moral degredation of American society to the end of the Cold War. It's precicely what happened to Rome after the Third Punic War... Rome became the unquestioned super power in the region and slipped into endless indulgence. The aristocrats lived lives of total luxary while the plebs lived in gross poverty... Something we see today with the whole "me" attitude. As soon as new rivals rose up, however, Roman virtues made a come back but eventually collapsed into decedance again.

Likewise, America's main rival, the Soviet Union, collapsed and now America is the only super power. With that, the fear of total destruction disappeared... And, as with Rome, America has slipped into an era of moral degradation and decadance. That's why I view China's rise in military and economic strength as a good thing for America, historically speaking.

If history has taught us one thing it's that all great civilizations require an equally great rival to maintain a sense of moral decency. Until the threat of total obliteration pushes Americans back to their senses, parents will just have to do their best to educate their children on the error of these advertisements and help to keep their self-esteem up by praising their children's strengths. Frankly, if I had a daughter... Even if she was fit to do it in every way imaginable.... I would NOT let her do beauty pagents (ever), wear make up (until she's a reasonable age), read Cosmo girl, seventeen, or any of those other teenage drama queen magazines, or even date until she's at least 16.

I do not know about that historical analysis of yours but I agree with you on the girl magazines. I do not have chidlren yet but if I do, I do not want them reading that crap. My wife reads that garbage and she is a great lady but I think that stuff has a corrupting influence on girls. I think it makes them overanalyze relationships and expect too much from men.

I think it makes them overanalyze relationships and expect too much from men.

Can you please explain this further?

You know, there's really nothing that can be done about this. The cause is presumably that sex sells, and unless massive controls are placed on advertising it will only get worse until it fails to provide sufficient revenue or the economy collapses.

Whining about it certainly isn't going to accomplish anything.

I skimmed that article and did not really see any examples of supposedly sexually oriented marketing to kids. If the author of that article was trying to convince the audience that there is a problem, they did a lousy job of it.

How are products marketed to children in a sexually inappropriate way? I just do not understand.

Well, there's always Abercrombie's line of ten-year old's thongs, which debuted in 2002. How's that for a start? (http://money.cnn.com/2002/05/22/news/companies/abercrombie/)

its a safety risk on lots of levels. yes it does signal to the deranged that this child isnt being carefully monitored--not a huge risk.

it also invites other people to tell her how sexy she looks. it invites HER to see herself as a sexy girl. it gives her the idea that she should always dress to attract. all sorts of things.

I think that's overstating things a bit. Wearing no clothing or the thread thongs that I've seen would be one thing, but I don't think a bikini "invites" anything. It's swimwear, beachwear, stuff for hot weather. How someone else takes a full-coverage two-piece is one thing, but saying that wearing one "invites" anything is dangerously close to the same impetus that blames the rape victim for the assault if she was dressed in any way revealingly.

I'm not saying that you believe that, I'm saying you're treading in similar water.

Well, there's always Abercrombie's line of ten-year old's thongs, which debuted in 2002. How's that for a start? (http://money.cnn.com/2002/05/22/news/companies/abercrombie/)

Well, it would have been nice if the alarmist old harpies in the OP link had actually mentioned something like this. You can't blame the poster you quoted for inadequacy on the part of those pitching the problem.

Abercrombie is one of the most heinous offenders in the area of sexualizing damn near everything and then saying "if you took it wrong, it's your fault" as a response. Fuck them.

You know, there's really nothing that can be done about this. The cause is presumably that sex sells, and unless massive controls are placed on advertising it will only get worse until it fails to provide sufficient revenue or the economy collapses.

Whining about it certainly isn't going to accomplish anything.
Or consumers could stop buying things on the basis of sexy ads. Oh, wait...that would require people to take responsibility for their own actions, and if they won't even take responsibility for buffering their children from the influence of strangers, well...

Like I said....

:tongue:

Or consumers could stop buying things on the basis of sexy ads. Oh, wait...that would require people to take responsibility for their own actions, and if they won't even take responsibility for buffering their children from the influence of strangers, well...

Yeah. I'll get busy building the runway just outside my ass for the flying monkeys' launch.

I think that's overstating things a bit. Wearing no clothing or the thread thongs that I've seen would be one thing, but I don't think a bikini "invites" anything. It's swimwear, beachwear, stuff for hot weather. How someone else takes a full-coverage two-piece is one thing, but saying that wearing one "invites" anything is dangerously close to the same impetus that blames the rape victim for the assault if she was dressed in any way revealingly.

I'm not saying that you believe that, I'm saying you're treading in similar water.


i see why you say that.

a careful parent is careful about how their children dress, how they talk, who they hang out with, where they go, what media they are exposed to.

if you dont want your child to be adversely affected by the sexualiziing of children, you dont participate in it.

Can you please explain this further?

I have read a few of these women's magazines and they seem to be a load of garbage. I am talking about the magazines that have headlines on the title like "How You Can Tell If He Loves You" and "15 Sex Secrets Finally Revealled."

The magazines are mostly full of make up ads and garbage advice on relationships. I have also noticed that there are a lot of goofy women out there. I may be putting together 1 and 2 and getting 5 but I suspect that these women's mags might be a factor here. I do not believe that these magazines whose advice often seems to encourage way too much overanalysis about what men are doing, has a positive impact on the relationship skills of our develloping young female readers of women's magazines.

By no means is my theory at all scientific.

Well, there's always Abercrombie's line of ten-year old's thongs, which debuted in 2002. How's that for a start? (http://money.cnn.com/2002/05/22/news/companies/abercrombie/)

That is not a bad start. It is a much better start than the link in the original post.

I do not know if panties having the words "eye candy" on them are capable of harming a child who wears them. How is that harmful to a child? It seems that you believe that these panties are harmful from your link and your characterization of the panties as thongs.

Is the term "eye candy" something that is rated PG, PG-13, or R? I do not believe that anyone could find them NC-17 or X rated.

I do not see any harm in children wearing swimsuits, underwear bearing the words "eye candy". I do not know how the wearing of these clothes will make the children grow up to be bad members of society. Perhaps I am missing something.

That is not a bad start. It is a much better start than the link in the original post.

I do not know if panties having the words "eye candy" on them are capable of harming a child who wears them. How is that harmful to a child? It seems that you believe that these panties are harmful from your link and your characterization of the panties as thongs.

Is the term "eye candy" something that is rated PG, PG-13, or R? I do not believe that anyone could find them NC-17 or X rated.

I do not see any harm in children wearing swimsuits, underwear bearing the words "eye candy". I do not know how the wearing of these clothes will make the children grow up to be bad members of society. Perhaps I am missing something.

No, they're not capable of harm, but they're capable of teaching a 10 year old girl that this thong with these sayings is what she's supposed to wear (and keep wearing) in order to be attractive to males.

That is not a bad start. It is a much better start than the link in the original post.

I do not know if panties having the words "eye candy" on them are capable of harming a child who wears them. How is that harmful to a child? It seems that you believe that these panties are harmful from your link and your characterization of the panties as thongs.

Is the term "eye candy" something that is rated PG, PG-13, or R? I do not believe that anyone could find them NC-17 or X rated.

I do not see any harm in children wearing swimsuits, underwear bearing the words "eye candy". I do not know how the wearing of these clothes will make the children grow up to be bad members of society. Perhaps I am missing something.
raising your little girl to think that she needs to be SEXY even at 8 years old is unwise.

what reason would a little girl HAVE to wear sexy undies?

No, they're not capable of harm, but they're capable of teaching a 10 year old girl that this thong with these sayings is what she's supposed to wear (and keep wearing) in order to be attractive to males.

I do not know that wearing such clothing teaches children anything. Girls should learn to dress nicely, I do not think that most need help in that area. I am not sure that "eye candy" panties teach anything, good or ill, to anyone.

raising your little girl to think that she needs to be SEXY even at 8 years old is unwise.

what reason would a little girl HAVE to wear sexy undies?

first, i do not think that "eye candy" written on panties counts as sexy but hey beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly nobody, 8 year old or otherwise truly needs "eye candy" panties. However, if a girl wants to wear it, big deal no problem. Kids go through wierd fads at that age, who are we to judge. At that age I slept with a blue eyed pink teddy bear and I am male. Kids do wierd stuff that just does not really matter.

I do not know that wearing such clothing teaches children anything. Girls should learn to dress nicely, I do not think that most need help in that area. I am not sure that "eye candy" panties teach anything, good or ill, to anyone.

First, what do you consider dressing nicely? I don't know about you, but I think the phrase "Eye Candy" on a thong for a 10 year old is really inappropriate.

Secondly, If the child thinks that's the norm, the child will more than likely go with it.

Also very young girls seem to feel the need to be sexy.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26037851/

Crying in the bathtub
Jennifer reported that one evening not long ago, her seven-year-old daughter Hannah began crying in the bathtub. Alarmed, Jennifer asked what was wrong. Hannah responded, “I’m fat! I’m fat! I want to be pretty like Isabelle — sexy like her! Then Judd would like me too!” Jennifer knew Isabelle, a very thin, very popular girl in Hannah’s class who wore “stylish” clothes that Jennifer thought were inappropriate for a seven-year-old.

I don't think those thongs help the situation at all. If girls today are being taught at a very young age that they need to be sexy, and need to wear inappropriate clothes in order to to be attractive, that seems to me that media is just shoving that thought down their throats.

First, what do you consider dressing nicely? I don't know about you, but I think the phrase "Eye Candy" on a thong for a 10 year old is really inappropriate.

Secondly, If the child thinks that's the norm, the child will more than likely go with it.

Also very young girls seem to feel the need to be sexy.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26037851/



I don't think those thongs help the situation at all. If girls today are being taught at a very young age that they need to be sexy, and need to wear inappropriate clothes in order to to be attractive, that seems to me that media is just shoving that thought down their throats.

This seems less about clothing and more about physique. Whatever motivates chidlren to eat right and exercise is good for them. When I was in first grade I had a concept of what it meant for a 1st grade girl to look beautiful and it did not involve flab. I do not think there is anything wrong with this. I also do not think that "eye candy" written on underwear is sexy. ALso the udnerwear in the link did not look like a thong to me.

Even if they were thongs, it would simply be another example of the age old girl activity of playing dress up and dressing up like their big sister or mother. I think this is whole topic is an example of people trying to read too much into something and identify a problem constructed in their own minds that has little or no correlation to the real problems that children have.

It is perfectly natural for there to be some early stages of sexual devellopment in prepubescents. It would be a problem perhaps if early sexual devellopment was not going on. It is immature and childish to blame a fashion company and make it a scapegoat for the problems that face our youth. The real problem is in the lack of family values, which means a lot of things to different people but to me it means a mindset of putting the best interests of children first. For example, do not have children until you and your spouse are 100% ready for children and committed to each other.

Another example is playing the primary role in educating your children. I do not think this requires home schooling, but it does require teaching or hiring tutors to make sure that your child can read in at least one language and be able to do simple math before kindergarten. More importantly, parents need to be there to answer their children's questions about everything from why is the sky blue to contraception and abortion.

its never been easy to raise your kids.

you have to protect them from this kind of crap. its what good parents DO.
This.

When I was a kid, my mother did not dress me in clothes that made me look like a 20 year old club hopping. She did not allow me to wear makeup until I was sixteen. She kept an eye and ear on what I was watching on TV and both shut it off if she thought it inappropriate and told me WHY it was inappropriate. She took me to one R-rated film before I was 17, but that was because we'd read the book together and she'd read the review and decided I could handle the content after we'd talked about it.

Many parents today seem to let cable tv, the internet, and movies raise their kids, then complain that they've no values. Sure they have -- just not the ones you should have instilled yourself.

I thought bikinis were standard swimwear for females.
LOL, not this female. Racers ftw!

Or the pit is bottomless.
Surely there must be a bottom, to hold in all the mud?

Abercrombie is one of the most heinous offenders in the area of sexualizing damn near everything and then saying "if you took it wrong, it's your fault" as a response. Fuck them.

No thanks. ;)

Katganistan,

From what I can tell from your recent post, your mother seems to have done a first rate job of parenting. I am not saying that I agree with the idea that children need to be screened from R-rated movies, but your Mother had a very good approach and it is apparent that she had a family values centered parenting style.

Parents can share the same family values but have different parenting styles. In other words, not all great parents do things the same way but they all parent in the same spirit.

first, i do not think that "eye candy" written on panties counts as sexy but hey beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly nobody, 8 year old or otherwise truly needs "eye candy" panties. However, if a girl wants to wear it, big deal no problem. Kids go through wierd fads at that age, who are we to judge. At that age I slept with a blue eyed pink teddy bear and I am male. Kids do wierd stuff that just does not really matter.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=eye+candy

Still think it doesn't mean sexy?
Should we perhaps allow her to wear fishnet stockings and stiletto heels, too?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=eye+candy

Still think it doesn't mean sexy?
Should we perhaps allow her to wear fishnet stockings and stiletto heels, too?

Sure "Eye candy" means "sexy". However, I do not think that "eye candy" written on panties makes the panties sexy.

I do not think that young girls should dress in fishnet stockings and stiletto heels. I have nothing against children develloping sexually. However, if I had an 8 year old daughter who wanted to wear such things I would be curious as to why. I probably would mention it to the family doctor. It seems rather bizzare behavior in someone so young.

Katganistan,

From what I can tell from your recent post, your mother seems to have done a first rate job of parenting. I am not saying that I agree with the idea that children need to be screened from R-rated movies, but your Mother had a very good approach and it is apparent that she had a family values centered parenting style.

Parents can share the same family values but have different parenting styles. In other words, not all great parents do things the same way but they all parent in the same spirit.
Well, even the MPAA would agree that most kids are not ready for the content of most R-rated movies. The one involved was not merely a matter of cartoonish violence but rather about a mentally retarded man who thought he was a superhero -- and the R rating was because he was seduced during the film and they depicted simulated sex.

However, as I said, my mom decided that we'd discussed it beforehand and it wasn't really the (pardon the pun) main thrust of the story, so despite it being "unsuitable for kids" it was, in her opinion, suitable for me and my nine year old brother.

Yes, people have differing parenting styles, but I have a hard time thinking anything good can come of a seven year old crying that she's not skinny enough... seven year olds are still losing the rounded look healthy toddlers and young children have.

http://www.twistedgrafix.com/CrowningGlory_aug29ban.jpg
http://www.ericaowens.com/index2.php
http://debroffdebrief.clubmom.com/photos/uncategorized/jonbenet_1.jpg
http://picturethistshirts.com/Bannerfile/LL2008HMBanner5.jpg
http://i314.photobucket.com/albums/ll403/designsbywish3/brooke.jpg
http://www.cinderellasparkle.com/Images/cpmaug2.jpg
http://www.cinderellasparkle.com/Images/cpmaugust.jpg
http://www.glitznglittergraphics.com/BANNERS/CarolyneCharmingBanner.jpg
http://www.glitznglittergraphics.com/BANNERS/AmberMeltHeartsBanner.jpg
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z155/grandsupremes/AmbersAngelsSecretsBanner.jpg
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z155/grandsupremes/AACanUDoThisBanner.jpg
http://www.twistedgrafix.com/KKtds_sept12ban.jpg
http://picturethistshirts.com/Bannerfile/XBT2008Banner6.jpg

I really find these pictures creepy and inappropriate.

Well, even the MPAA would agree that most kids are not ready for the content of most R-rated movies. The one involved was not merely a matter of cartoonish violence but rather about a mentally retarded man who thought he was a superhero -- and the R rating was because he was seduced during the film and they depicted simulated sex.

However, as I said, my mom decided that we'd discussed it beforehand and it wasn't really the (pardon the pun) main thrust of the story, so despite it being "unsuitable for kids" it was, in her opinion, suitable for me and my nine year old brother.

Yes, people have differing parenting styles, but I have a hard time thinking anything good can come of a seven year old crying that she's not skinny enough... seven year olds are still losing the rounded look healthy toddlers and young children have.

http://www.twistedgrafix.com/CrowningGlory_aug29ban.jpg
http://www.ericaowens.com/index2.php
http://debroffdebrief.clubmom.com/photos/uncategorized/jonbenet_1.jpg
http://picturethistshirts.com/Bannerfile/LL2008HMBanner5.jpg
http://i314.photobucket.com/albums/ll403/designsbywish3/brooke.jpg
http://www.cinderellasparkle.com/Images/cpmaug2.jpg
http://www.cinderellasparkle.com/Images/cpmaugust.jpg
http://www.glitznglittergraphics.com/BANNERS/CarolyneCharmingBanner.jpg
http://www.glitznglittergraphics.com/BANNERS/AmberMeltHeartsBanner.jpg
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z155/grandsupremes/AmbersAngelsSecretsBanner.jpg
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z155/grandsupremes/AACanUDoThisBanner.jpg
http://www.twistedgrafix.com/KKtds_sept12ban.jpg
http://picturethistshirts.com/Bannerfile/XBT2008Banner6.jpg

I really find these pictures creepy and inappropriate.

Little girl beauty pageants look creepy but they really are just kids playing dress up. If somebody found the kids sexy that would be disturbing. We have to recognize that these are kids playing dress up competetively. If that is your viewpoint it should not be disturbing. However, little girls playing dress up is creepy to me. It is sort of like people dressed up like clowns. Just creepy. I am glad that people can play dress up and dress like clowns but it is not my bag.

What is MPAA?