Sorry I misinterpreted your post, irishgirl.
I agree, its hard to tell young teens ANYTHING. But that’s our job as parents. So my daughter when she gets to that age, can throw a tantrum in the middle of the department store if she likes, but I will not buy her thongs or see-through clothing.
I would be in favor of a ban on the words “read my post”. Obviously your post was misleading, since 2 seperate people extracted a meaning that you now deny.
You said you didn’t approve, BUT “you can’t stop [girls] from wanting to look sexy.”
Of course they WANT to, but does A&F have to encourage them by selling little sexy undies with pictures of cherries on them? That’s my point - we don’t always give children everything they want, if it’s not in their best interest to have it.
Where are you getting that? My understanding is that the underwear was marketed to 10-16 year olds, and I am not familiar with any quotes in which A&F denies this. But please correct me if I am mistaken.
But we’re not talking about adult underwear in small sizes - We’re talking about underwear deliberately designed for children.
All the more reason to be careful what kind of signals we are sending to them.
Huh? Why is that hard?
I think a lot of you are missing the real issue here. It’s not just that they’re selling thongs, it’s thongs FOR 10-16 y.o. girls, WITH SEXY PHRASES written on them. I don’t object to t-shirts, but I would object to a tshirt for a 10-year old girl that says: “I am underage - please have sex with me”, for example.
O.K., good - so I guess we agree that what A&F is doing is wrong, and you are saying that it’s good to be understanding about your child’s wants and desires, while still being firm. Agreed.
Things change. Do you make your daughters, sisters wear this to the beach?
[moral outrage]“But that’s not the same!!”[/moral outrage]
Yes it is. I bet the very reason a 13 y.o. girl is wearing thongs, is to cause moral outrage, to provoke her elders. It’s part of the puberty to do such things and have always been.
People saying “we don’t like this, we’re scared of the messages this is sending out”, actually make the message, by acting morally outraged. If everyone would just shrug and say “So what?!” it wouldn’t be a big deal and the sexual connotations would vanish.
The kids in puberty would then find something else to upset the grown generation with. It used to be music, but since “My Generation” is getting close to retirement, kids need something else. Today it’s sex, tattos, piercing. Tomorrow? Who knows.
And you don’t find it reprehensible that a company like A&F is taking advantage of this desire for kids to shock their elders and cashing in on free negative publicity?
We should just say “we don’t care if 10 y.o. girls wear sexy thong underwear with lascivious expression printed on them”, and then the problem will go away?:rolleyes:
Actually I do, but she is only four and its in a pretty shade of pink.
Blowero:
re: companies cashing in on this. How about record companies? The “Parental advisory” is a sure way of grabbing a teens attention. Toy companies? Barbie? Magic ear ring Ken, anyone?
And yes, we should not care. It’s your (and all others) moral attitude that is causing this, not A&F and their marketing. Cause and effect…
How about toy and record companies? IIRC, the record companies did not come up with the parental advisory idea, so that’s not a good comparison. If you have an example of a company that is using controversy as a marketing tool, post it in another thread and I will comment on whether I think they are acting ethically. Just because another company is also unethical does not excuse A&F.
I don’t find Barbie to be nearly as controversial as the A&F stuff. If they came out with Underage Sexy Eye-Candy Thong Barbie, Mattel would probably get a good number of complaints. And WTF is Magic ear ring Ken?
Causing what?
Uhhh the classic clash between European decadent laissez faire and US prudish morality is taking shape…
I think the argument bogs down to nurture the natural vs. prune the natural. The goal is the same, namely to achieve morally aware and responsible adults. Personally I am all for nurture the natural, it tends to create more informed individuals. But hey I can see why that can be hard; you have to give up control and when it comes to your own kids that can indeed be a scary perspective.
Sparc
blowero:
Causing what? you ask.
I’ll try to be a bit more clear. By saying this is terrible, wrong and disgusting, you are part of a larger gruop that is saying the exact same thing. The fact that this group exist, and is saying what you’re saying, makes this controversial. The sexual connotations of thongs is not created by 12 year old girls, it’s created by adults, saying: “That’s disgusting!”
As to A&F: Stop buying there. The power of the consumer is a great weapon.
<sigh>
Come back, Chris Morris, all is forgiven.
“The statement of their sexuality”. I love that phrase. What, exactly, is “the statement of their sexuality”? That they reached menarche? That they’re sexually active? That they’re sexually available? That they don’t mind being treated like brainless sex objects by everyone they meet?
Pardon my naivete, but whatever happened to the days when women were trying to stop being treated like sex objects? Oh, I remember – the two of you weren’t born yet. I’m getting old…
Well, I happen to find selling thong underwear for 10 year old girls with “Eye Candy”, “Sexy”, and pictures of cherries on them to be in poor taste. Apparently you don’t see any sexual connotations there, and believe that I and others have invented them out of thin air. All I can say is: I disagree. I do not consider myself prudish by any means, but I DO draw the line somewhere.
I’m curious: Is there ANYTHING that you would consider immoral? For example, if they started selling Pampers with “Old enough to pee, old enough for me” written on them, would that bother you, or should we just ignore it so as not to “create” a controversy?
I don’t shop there.
Just wondering, The Gaspode: are you a teenager? I’m guessing you are.
No, I also realize the obvious. There are two of us, at least. It amazes me that the popular media swallows their marketing hook, line, and sinker. Obviously, A&F never really intended to sell thongs to children with provocative sexually-charged logos. That’s just ridiculous.
The marketing guy who came up with this latest idea is a genius. I’d have fired him for being TOO obvious with his plan for free publicity. I’m wrong though… I cannot believe that the mainstream media is reporting this marketing plan as “news”. I’ll hand it to the guy who came up with it… I’d never have thought that the media and general public would fall for this. Wasn’t it just a few weeks ago that they had the offensive asian stereotype shirts? And a few years ago they had free advertising with their naked models.
Calvin Klein’s pornographic tv spots were marketing genius at the time… they seem kind of tame today, but A&F has taken it to a new level.
Even here at the straight dope people are arguing this as if it were not a marketing ploy but a genuine issue. I don’t get it. I can see the meeting now:
Marketing guy: Well, we can get tons of free advertising if we announce that we will sell children’s thongs!
VP: Come on, nobody will fall for that…
Marketing guy: I’m not done… We’ll put sexually suggestive logos on the front… like an image of a cherry, or “hot stuff”!
VP: I know your slant-eyed buck-toothed chinese t-shirt ploy worked well, but NOBODY will fall for this!
Marketing guy: Well, they fell for that… obviously they will eat this up as well.
VP: Fine… go for it.
I just wonder how many more abercrombie and fitch campaigns will suck people in. Four weeks from now they’ll do something equally outrageous and people will suck it up yet again.
Actually, several of us pointed out about a week ago that this is an obvious marketing ploy. In fact, I haven’t seen anyone in this thread say that it WASN’T a marketing ploy. I’m not sure what you mean by “never really intended to sell [them]”. The stuff was put on the rack in the stores. If what you mean is that they had an ulterior motive - I agree. In my mind, that’s even worse. It’s one thing to sell a controversial product because you believe you are doing the right thing, but it’s another thing entirely to do something that you know is wrong just to get publicity. That is some cold, calculating, manipulative shit, and I don’t think it should be condoned.
To take your reasoning to its absurd extreme: since bin Laden destroyed the WTC in order to get publicity for his “cause”, should we have just ignored him in order to avoid playing into his hands?
Blowero
I don’t know what my age has to do with the issue at hand, and I’m not sure if I’m to feel flattered or insulted, but I’m 41.
And I still say that the sexual connotation is cuased by the adult world. By saying “this is naughty, only for adults” we sure enough make kids interested. Had the consensus been: “These are practical undergarments for women over 40 who’s given birth to at least 4 babies” then the 12 y.o. girls would find another line to cross, and we would have the exact same debate about whatever that would be.
I’m 27, for whatever that ends up being worth in the long run, and I feel more or less exactly the same as The Gaspode.
I don’t feel that A&F or Society-As-A-Whole is under any obligation to raise my daughter responsibly. That is my damn job, last time I checked.
Can 12 year olds have sex?
