Sexy Kids’ Underwear Under Fire In Australia
Jun 15th, 2007 | 7 responses
Here’s yet another example of how consumers aren’t determining a market — but people marketing goods are imposing something on young people that cuts short what was once considered an era of innocence called “childhood”:
CHILD experts say marketing racy underwear to girls as young as eight is sexualising children and robbing them of their childhood.
Psychologists and parents have urged companies to consider the impact of selling lingerie especially designed for eight to 16-year-olds.
Kylie Minogue’s range of underwear is the latest “tween” product to come under fire.
The “tween” market is a big one in westernized countries. There was a time when the teen culture was limited to just that. But aspects of it have been pushed towards younger kids as people marketing goods and media products now consider “tweens” a market perceived as almost the same as teens — but composed of people who are smaller and have higher voices. Once they were just considered kids. MORE:
The Holeproof Love Kylie Princess range includes bras and high-cut briefs trimmed with glitter, and is aimed at eight to 16-year-olds and sold at Target stores.
Adolescent psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg was critical of Minogue for lending her name to the racy range.
“I’m really disappointed that she is associating herself with what represents, in my view, this ongoing campaign to erode childhood,” Dr Carr-Gregg said. “I think what this is going to do is tarnish her image.”
Kylie joins other brands and franchises already developing the girls’ lingerie market such as Bratz, Barbie and My Little Pony.
Australian Childhood Foundation CEO Dr Joe Tucci said companies were not thinking enough about the implications of marketing such products to young girls.
“It’s not helpful for children’s development to be exposed to essentially adult concepts at such a young age, especially when kids aren’t developmentally able to understand what it all means,” he said.
Dr Tucci said he had seen an increase in children as young as 10 showing problems with sexual behaviour.
“These are kids who are quite young, who are engaging in behaviour that is sexual and sometimes harmful to other kids,” he said.
Parenting educator Michael Grose said children were being forced to grow up too fast.
This highlights a development seen in many westernized countries. It’s often said that the audience or market DEMAND certain things. In fact, it’s the people peddling a given product — whether it’s music with graphically racy lyrics that were once considered XXX, films containing increasingly bloody and inventive murders, video games where young people can take the roles as criminals (and rob or kill others), etc. — who make the decisions on goods and programming.
They decide by what is offered and how it’s offered whether it’s “cool” or not. Their DECISIONS are what create the socialization.
Cigarette smoking and drug use in movies? What audience members demand to see that before a movie is shot? Films or music containing an f-word for every other word? In some films and music the case can be made that it’s part of the artistic piece; but in others, it’s merely thrown in. When did audience members DEMAND that kind of language is used or they would not go to see a film? And if you cut those words out of many good films, wouldn’t they still be good films?
This becomes the culture in which young people grow up — and all they know as the norm. THEY didn’t create it; marketers and programmers did.
So the makers of provocative undies for kids will likely make a big financial killing just as people making CDS filled with graphically sexual words, descriptions of sex acts, and racially taboo words do all the time.
There was a time when the lyrics to Guns ‘N Roses song “Used To Love Her” (but I had to kill her) was considered shocking. Now it’s as shocking as Old McDonald Had A Farm.
Young young kids are NOT demanding this. It’s being imposed on them. And the marketers’ financial killing, in a perhaps unintentional race to come up with who can lower the bar even further, has collateral damage — the extermination of the years of innocence…which seemingly are becoming younger and fewer with each passing day.
And it’s uncool to shed a tear over that…
opinions powered by SendLove.to
7 Responses to “Sexy Kids’ Underwear Under Fire In Australia”
Maybe I’ve missed something here, but I fail to see what is wrong with the underwear. Aside from the glitter, it’s probably not much different from what I wore as a pre-teen.
Holly, I don’t know what the underwear looks like, but the description on the website (before it was changed because of complaints) was:
“sexy, lacy, racy, girly, fun, comfortable for every day . . . and night.”
Now, I don’t think this is so bad for a 16 year-old but for an eight year old? Racy? Great for night? Call me old-fashioned but….
Now, I don’t like seeing little girls essentially dressed up as street walkers, and I appreciate the worry, but in the end it’s the parents responsibility to teach their daughters self-respect, not the corporations. If parents simply refused to buy those things for their daughters then the corporations would stop selling them. It would be nice if the corporations had a tiny bit of taste and personal responsibility, but since that’s obviously a pipe-dream it’s up to the parent to put their foot down. I’m mostly a lefty, but I really think that, within sheer legality, corporations should be allowed to market whatever they want, and the consumer must be responsible enough to say “no”. The only exceptions might be very extreme ones, like marketing tobacco to young children, since it’s an addictive drug that has a very high probability of killing you.
Um yeah. Gotta agree with Lynx here. 8 year olds are not saving their allowances for “bras and high-cut briefs trimmed with glitter”. They might beg mommy to buy it, but they aren’t the consumer with the final say in the matter. If mom and dad do their job and say no, strangely enough those items may not even hit the clearance rack on the way to the dumpster. You’ll have to trust me when I say there are days I am glad I am not the mother of a girl; when I walk by a girls’ clothing department I alternate between “Oh how cute!” and “Oh my God what were they thinking.” I’m glad I don’t have to argue about why I won’t buy the bimbowear.
Has anybody else noticed that we are specifically talking about sexy underwear for girls? More to the point, only for girls? I think it’s a little creepy that “they” are “sexualizing” our girls, and yet boys are still free to decide whether they like the Superman or Spiderman briefs better. I’m not normally one who sees sexism in every little slight, but this is downright pervy when you think about it.
There was a time when a young person of 13 might be considered an adult in the eyes of society. I think we are all better off that this is no longer so.
As Lynx says, parents should be responsible parents. No parent can shield a child from outside influences, though.
Marketing is the art of seduction, and the seduction of vulnerable children is morally corrupt, whether it is enticement for sexy underwear or gorging on fattening snacks.
Advertisements for cigarettes were dealt with rather severely. Why is tobacco the single corrupting product to warrant censure?
I lay the blame squarely on the pervasive acceptance of profit making as the ultimate good
and that the end justifies all means.
Parents and onlookers share in the responsibility.
Corporations have a bigger share, because they introduced the problem.
I wonder how many of those dreaming up this procuct line are fathers of young girls, and if they are, what kind of fathers are they?
What’s wrong with it is that 8 year old girls don’t need bras.
[...] Sexy Kids’ Underwear Under Fire In AustraliaThe Moderate Voice – it’s the people peddling a given product — whether it’s music with graphically racy lyrics that were once considered XXX will likely make a big financial killing just as people making CDS filled with graphically sexual words, descriptions of sex [...]
Stores and Manufactures are not responsible for what kids wear, their parents are. If a retailer decides to sell clothes for kids that would be considered too provocative it is up to the parent to make the decision as to whether or not it should be bought. Parents need to be able to say no if they decide that the clothes is inappropriate.
If a parent has a problem saying no to their child then a bigger problem lies there. All parents need to do is not buy such clothing and not allow thier children to wear such clothes. Should they find a child is wearing clothes that is not allow then the parent should destoy it. In other words, parents take responsibility for your spawn. You are suppose to be parenting the child not trying to be the child’s friend and passing on your responsibilities to others.
If stores cannot/do not sell the clothes then they will not carry it. No business is gonna carry product just for the sake of it. On the other hand if the clothes is selling briskly then obviously someone is buying it and a market exists for it. In which case perhaps you should be focusing your concern on those buying said garments.
Face the fact, if someone wants something thing and is willing to pay someone else will provide it and take the money.