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.

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?

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.

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.