“eye candy,” eh?
i’m all about thongs. i’m all about children not feeling sexually repressed.
hrm…and abercrombie & fitch nauseates me on general principle.
i can hear the disgruntled parents already…
You know, I think this disgusting and stupid, but I’m also dreading the inevitable protests and such at A&F. Look, I hate their overpriced clothes and find their marketing tactics deplorable too–but I just don’t spend my money there.
LolaBaby (and others): When I was 10, I wanted to dress like the women I saw on TV and so forth. I would have liked to prance around in tank tops like Olivia Newton-John, or sprawl gracefully in designer jeans like Brooke Shields.
But I knew what I looked like. I knew that on me, a tank top would simply look like underwear. And I had a pair of designer jeans, but I knew that I was still, essentially, a kid wearing jeans. “Caring about clothes” does not justify wearing something that’s too old for you. It seems like in those days, there were still clear divisions between kid things and grown-up things. I didn’t see any women wearing ribbon barettes, like my friends and I did. We were fashion conscious in a way that was appropriate for our age.
One thing I wonder about, though. If a ten-year-old girl with no breasts, no hips, and only the suggestion of a butt wears something that’s tight around the waist and low at the front, is that indecent? I think it starts to be indecent when developing breasts, etc., are improperly covered or harnessed, but not necessarily before. Example would be the white jersey top that was adorable when I was 11, but permanently retired by the time I was 13 ;).
I think it used to be that you could show as much skin as you wanted to, as long as skin was all you had. When you started to get curves, you had to cover up more. So an eight-year-old could wear a strapless sundress, but not a thirteen-year-old.
But there’s no room in this equation for “eye candy” and “wink wink”!
Rilchiam: I was never fashion-conscious, and I still think the perfect outfit for me daily is a t-shirt and shorts.
TMI alert: I only started wearing thongs this year, and I am 34! :eek:
At ten years of age, I was beating up boys. 
Oh, I didn’t mean you personally, Lola! I just named you because you beat me to the quote I wanted to post. 
BTW, with a name like Lola, why don’t you wear red chiffon slit up to here? (Ask Eve if you don’t get the reference!)
I thought dressing children like miniature versions of adults went out of fashion in the 19th century… I guess this is what they mean when they say that fashion repeats itself.
Last summer, I saw a five-year-old girl playing in the park, wearing the tiniest tank top I have ever seen. (I mean tiniest as in “You’d think they could have thrown in a little more cloth for that price”.) Bright pink, with “Hello boys!” emblazoned on the front in silver sequins.
Last November, we had a scout trip for our 10-13-year-olds. We were changing to go to the sauna on Saturday night. One of the girls was wearing a thong. She’s ten. One of her friends asked her “Why are you wearing underwear like that?” The girl said “Well, my mom didn’t pack any other kind of underwear for me…”
When I was five, I wore shirts that said “My Little Pony” on them. When I was ten, my mother did not buy me thong underwear.
I would have been laughed out of the classroom for wearing a shirt saying “Hello Boys!”
I still don’t wear thong underwear too often. I find them somewhat uncomfortable, like a permanent wedgie. I see no reason why a ten-year-old would need to hide a pantie line.
Smart kid.
The panties themselves (which would presumably be covered up most of the time) don’t seem as questionable to me as the “quotes” on them.
My Underoos said “Human Beans” and had pictures of beans with faces. Maybe a bit odd, but not eyebrow-lifting.
Christ I shudder to think what sort of freaks are lining up to photograph the underwear section of Abercrombies next kids’ clothing catalogue. I’m surprised thejust don’t upload the images of 10-year-old girls in thongs to their website and charge for access to boost their (deservedly) flagging share price.
Sad, and sick.
-
-
- Yea, who do they think they are, Bennetton or something? - DougC
-
No worries, I didn’t think you meant me personally.
As for chiffon…no…just no.
Another thing…I would think A&F would have liked to stay out of the spotlight after the T-shirt fiasco. My niece is 7, almost 8, and my sister likes to dress her “girly-girly”, but I don’t think she’d even having a thong an option. Lucky for me I have a little boy so I don’t have to worry about things like this. I have enough trouble dressing myself!
I think there should be Garanimals for fashion-challenged people like me.
Don’t give them ideas!
I was surprised when I noticed a Journey’s Kidz had opened in the mall back home. I wondered how many parents could want a pair of knee-high black vinyl boots for their children. Apparently, the number of people willing to dress their kids like teenagers is larger than I thought.
This sounds right up the alley of my sister’s hubbie’s ex-wife. She brought his two daughters to my sister’s wedding rehearsal. (He and ex are still on good terms.) The youngest daughter (age 6) had on a t-shirt that said “Kitty’s Massage Parlour” with a cat on it dressed like a hooker. :eek:
What ever happened to kids wearing t-shirts with things on them like cartoon characters? When I was between ages 6 and 10 you couldn’t have gotten me out of my playclothes, which consisted of Wonder Woman, Batman and Robin, and Spiderman t-shirts, and a good pair of shorts. (Of course, this was 1980-1984.) When I was in fifth grade, the closest I was allowed to dress “older” was dressing like Bananarama or The Go-Go’s, wearing funky colored pants and multiple tank tops with lots of bracelets.
Just curious: what do you all think is an appropriate age to start wearing a thong? Just a plain old thong, without the “eye-candy” bit, which I think is totally out of line.
Well they are for sale the the A&F website if you want to see them.
Checkout the downloadable wallpapers Humbert!
So, does this mean kindergartens are going to have mandatory g-string checks at the door now as well as high schools?
When I was ten a “thong” was a sandal with a strap that separated your big toe from the rest of your toes.
Sheesh!
And I wore mid-drift tops when I was little-but they were the kind that were layers of little ruffles with a pair of pink polka dot shorts and a Strawberry Shortcake necklace (which, btw, I still have!)
I think this is sick.
According to the article, Abercrombie & Fitch is based in New Albany, Ohio, which means that its most likely a division of The Limited. I grew up in New Albany, back when it was a quiet little farming town of less than 5,000 people. The folks at The Limited decided that they’d buy up the town, bulldoze everything about it, and immediately jack up the property taxes to the point that anyone who was a long term resident would have to leave. I’ve hated those folks for a long, long, time. This just proves how evil they really are.
I don’t actually have a problem with kids wearing thongs, as long as they aren’t showing them. But the sexual text on them?!?! That is so beyond out of line that I’m speechless.
I checked out the Limited Brands site (http://limitedbrands.com/) and there is no mention of A&F on the site.
A&F was at one time owned by LB. It started as a family buisness. It went bust was then bought by Oshman’s, then Oshman’s had problems. LB stepped in and bailed A&F out. A&F is now a publicaly held compmany and is no longer owned by LB. A&F’s ticker symbol is AFN, and the stock is down allmost %5 today.
A&F uses a company called MAST Industries (http://www.mast.com/) as a supplier. MAST is indepent of LB but is owned by them. They also supply Disney and a host of companies also not owned by LB.
I love pointless research.