Way too small. Senseless. No good can come from it.
Gigi,
I think that is the whole problem, if you (generic you, not you specifically) make children “sexual” by the clothes they wear, they will certainly pick up on that and behave sexually at an inappropriately young age. The bikini in the picture is designed to be sexual - it is alike a mirror image of something you would see on Baywatch. A girl that age should not be wearing clothes that are primarily sexual, she will pick up on the attitude when she is way to young to be dealing with such issues.
I have a two year old, and I will be teaching her about sex at a very young age - as knowledge is power, but I won’t allow her to “dress sexily” until she is ready for the image she is projectinig and the reactions she is trying to elicit. IOW, i don’t want her “looking sexy” until she is ready to HAVE sex. That is not to say I don’t want her to look good and feel confident, but this doesn’t require her to look sexy.
By dressing the girl in the photo in a bikini that is primarily sexual (as opposed to functional) she, or rather the person that chose the clothes, is trying to elicit a sexual response - and that is unhealthy for the girl.
And for what its worth, I would not avoid such a bikini for a fear of child molesters or what others think, but it is because I don’t want her to think of herself as a “sexual object” which is what will happen when she wears clothes designed to elicit a sexual response, or make her look sexy.
Definitely sexual. That’s a string bikini she’s wearing. It is designed specifically to draw attention to the genitals and butt. (I don’t expect that the suit is any more modest in back.) Basically, she’s a pre-pubescent girl, wearing clothing that adult women wear when they want to give guys boners. And that’s just creepy.
Oh gee, could this be a publicity stunt?
This constant scrutiny for “child porn” is bloody ridiculous. I don’t believe for a second that pedophiles are on the increase or that the few that exist pose any appreciable danger to children. It’s all part and parcel of the danger-mongering that has taken over what pitiful excuse for news still existed.
I didn’t grow up in the idealized '50s, I grew up in a high-crime medium-sized city in the '70s and '80s. Crime rates are lower now than they’ve been in close to 50 years and they peaked about the time I was hitting middle-school age. If people should have worried about their kids, they should have then. Know what? Parents did worry a bit, but the actual danger was so slight that elaborate precautions and witch hunts never even got serious consideration. There were far more nice and helpful people in neighborhoods then than there were violent an abusive ones. That is even more likely to be true now.
It’s stupid to look for pedophiles behind every tree. If you adopt a skewed viewpoint of the world, you shouldn’t be surprised if the world conforms to your expectations. Your interpretation rules your experience. That’s one of the reasons why 5 eyewitnesses can see 6 different things, some of which aren’t even supported by objective reality.
The sexualization going on here is through the eyes of the beholder. I’m not a pervert so I don’t see this as being sexual. Silly, yes, sexual, no. Besides, the girl’s obviously having a great time. Who’s being harmed here? I see no victims, just people itching to create one.
What’s next, telling women that they may have been raped and they didn’t even know it? Oh, wait, that’s happened too. And it’s a bunch of crap.
It’s not about pedophiles, Sleel - they’re turned on by kids no matter WHAT they’re wearing. Has nothing to do with sickos (except for giving them one more kid to stare at, by virtue of publishing).
It’s about using provocative clothing to turn a child into an object of desire for (normal, not pedophilic) adult men. And it’s also about context, about a child being put on a catwalk in sexy clothes designed for adult women.
But I do agree with you, a lot of parents are excessively hypervigilant these days.
They were that low when I last wore bottom-only… uh… 27 years ago.
What I don’t get is tit-covers for the tit-less.
I agree with this. That’s why I don’t understand why so many people feel the need to drag the Porno for Pedos schtick out every time something like this comes up.
There’s no clothing, no makeup, nothing you could do short of creating facsimiles of secondary sexual characteristics that would make a child attractive to a guy who didn’t already have pedophilic tendencies. The designer did it to make a point, he wanted to shock people a little. He succeeded.
This stunt is worthy of comment for those reasons, but the equating it to “child porn” crap really needs to stop. No matter what the context, it’s not porn and it’s not sexual. It’s about testing the limits of societal approval, nothing more.
Hmm, you’ve raised an interesting point — because a lot of models seem to lack secondary sexual characteristics. In fact, women are given the message that that’s what men want. No hips, no boobs, no body hair.
Make that kid a bit taller and she looks like a lot of models out there.
See, that’s another problem. Women think that men want women who look like runway models. We don’t.
Apparently, several studies have shown that women consistently rate much thinner body shapes as appealing to men than the body shapes that men actually choose as being sexy. We want women who look like lingerie or swimsuit models; fit women with boobs, round thighs, hips, and bubble butts. There’s a fundamental disconnect between what women think men find sexy and what men actually want. Bony, rail-thin, anorexic, chain-smoking waifs with cheekbones that can carve roasts do nothing for most guys. Believe me, almost nothing in the fashion world has any appeal for most men.
Take a look at who makes the list of most sexy women in men’s magazines, like Maxim. Hint: you won’t find a lot of skinny bony chicks there.
But clothes flow so much better on the rail thin women that work the catwalk. That is why designers hire them.
I remember being a little girl, and specifically being aware of sexuality by 7 at the absolute latest (I have a bad earlier memory). I read a textbook on it at 8 to get clear on things.
I wasn’t thinking of how to make myself sexually attractive to men at that point, of course, but I was conscious of my body. I didn’t want to be “sexy”, though I had an idea of what it was, but I remember a vague sense of contentment at having a flat stomach, for instance, after looking at various ‘examples’ of beauty. And I was certainly dismayed if I noticed my undies showed or if I could see my nipples through my shirt, I just didn’t tell an adult about it. Not all children are blissfully unaware of such things. I assume many pick up on more than they let on.
Even if the model is unaware of any of this (and probably, she is, since it’s an isolated event), the issue for me doesn’t really concern her, just the designer (to a point, sure, it is just about the clothing). Why choose deliberate skimpiness as the aspect of modern women’s fashion to translate for children’s wear? It is deliberate - it’s not like there’s a huge concern over fabric efficiency or mobility displayed here. Little kids can run around totally naked at the beach if their clothes get in the way (even kids that are aware, if all the other kids are comfortably doing it) and their parents let them. There’s no reason to just barely cover the areola/buttcrack/pubic mound as opposed to doing a normal bikini cut, even. It’s more likely to fall off than to allow ease of movement. So what would the reason be? It’s not simple ignorance of appropriateness. A runway caliber designer doesn’t live in a cave. What’s good about it? Why go there? To make the statement “Ha ha, pedophiles and the media! Look at me flipping you off!”? And regardless of whether this particular designer is making some kind of “genius” artistic statement, would one really expect everyone to pick up on that and not perpetuate this sort of thing?
It’s not child porn. But it is an issue.
btw, I don’t know any women who think men want them to look like rail-thin couture models. They know men want them to look like underwear models, if they’re thinking about such things at all.