Lingerie...for kids

38 posts / 0 new
Last post
Doug
Lingerie...for kids
HeywoodFloyd

F.U.C.K.

I am.....lost for words.

p-sto

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

F.U.C.K.

I am.....lost for words.

You took the lack of words right out of my mouth.

Tommy_Paine

 

Yeah, isn't it horrible!!!! look at this picture....LOOK at it....isn't that just wrong....wait....here's another picture of a scantily clad nine year old...isn't that just awful!!!!  Notr got enough yet? Here's another....and another and another......

 

Here at celbrity pix, we're not pedophiles, we just like the custom it brings in.

 

 

Skinny Dipper

Those damn underoos have sure changed.  I think I'll go puke now.

Snert Snert's picture

Huh.  So when the reproductively-mature Miley appears in some photos that allude to the possibility of her having a sexuality, that was a big problem, but when her pre-pubescent sister appears in lingerie on a stripper pole, that's just good business.

Skinny Dipper

You can get this crap at Kids Treat at the Promenade Mall in Thornhill.  I wonder if little Jewish girls will wear this crap.  The store is located in a Jewish neighbourhood.  I do deliberately use the words Jewish and girls.  The neighbourhood is middle to upper-middle class.  It's also Jewish.  The people who shop at the mall are largely Jewish (except at the Chinese supermarket, T&T).

p-sto

I hope this business venture fails horribly.  If it succeds we only have society to blame for having parents that are willing to support this.

remind remind's picture

Why is this thread and link even here?

 

It actually is indicative of how men think it is okay to look and then express indignation, yet even  more look so they too can state indignation abouit it....

 

FFS get a grip

 

...this thread and link need to be gone.

 

Shame on you Doug.

p-sto

Um, to be clear in case you decided not to look at the link.  There are no pictures of young girls in lingerie.  There are pictures of young girls wearing clothes, the clothing choices may be questionable in some instances but not really worth commenting on in my opinion.

What I was commenting on was the idea that young girls require fancy undergarments that may or may not be in an alluring style.  I'm not sure what's wrong with reading an article and objecting to the content.

remind remind's picture

hello.....they are blaming a 9 year old in the article as if it is her designing and marketing the lingerie, as if it is her dressing that way, etc etc,  and that she is out of control.... what is this shit heh?

The one picture has 9 year olds around a stripping pole FFS, and the rest of the pics are no damn better....as i said it does not belong here.

It is adults around her doing this to her, who are to blame, and it is adults pushing it on the public like Doug here, as if a 9 year old is to blame for it, which make the whole damn thing worse.

Next thing ya know it will a 9 year olds fault she was raped by a man too...

Also....using the word "fuck" by men in respect to a 9 year old having a lingerie line and  commenting on it as if it is news, even if it is alleged indignationm when done only by men, is indicative, eh!

 

Then to provide a link to find out where the line can be bought takes it to a whole other level.

 

Got throw up in the back of my throat and tears rolling down my face.

Tommy_Paine

 

That wasn't an "article" even by Toronto Sun standards. It was a very flimsy pretext to sell shit by sexualizing a child. 

 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

It is adults around her doing this to her, who are to blame, and it is adults pushing it on the public like Doug here, as if a 9 year old is to blame for it, which make the whole damn thing worse.

Next thing ya know it will a 9 year olds fault she was raped by a man too...

 

From the article:

 

Quote:
The latest news that's got us scratching our heads and wondering, yet again, 'what were her parents thinking?' ...little Noah is set to become a lingerie model.

 

And in this case, the emphasis is theirs.

p-sto

I at no time meant to imply that it was the nine year old's fault.

HeywoodFloyd

remind wrote:
Also....using the word "fuck" by men in respect to a 9 year old having a lingerie line and  commenting on it as if it is news, even if it is alleged indignationm when done only by men, is indicative, eh!

 

Oh p-l-fucking-ease.

You decide to read into what I said some judgement on the child? Nice Ass-U-me.

remind remind's picture

Quote:
Seems like every time we hear about Noah Cyrus she's doing something totally innapropriate for her age.

Whether it's dressing like a dominatrix for Halloween, skipping around a pole-dancing pole or performing the totally un-PG hits 'Smack That' and 'Tik Tok', we suspect this nine-year-old could easily notch up more scandals than her big sis by the time she hits her teens.

The bolded portions are stating it is her actions, not her parents actions doing this to her.

From the article in the OP

 

heywood I did not see your comments as some judgement on the child, I saw your use of the work fuck completely inappropriate, in respect to the reality people are  sexualizing  a 9 year old.

 

As I stated before this thread needs to be closed, it is disgusting...

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

I don't know remind. I hear you but I wouldn't have known about this but for Doug and babble.  I get what you're saying but I went over to have dinner with my niece for her birthday the other night and couldn't believe the stuff in shows she was watching.  Was it Zach and Cody?  My sister appreciates when I pass on stuff like this and tries to pay attention. 

 

I think you're overanalyzing babblers' opposition to this sort of crap.  It would be good if us men would shut up though to get direction from women first on these issues.

Stargazer

Doug has been a babbler for ages. There is no chance in hell that he would post this up just to piss you off remind. Personally I am glad he posted this because I think Billy Ray has completely sexualized and used his kids in extremely harmful ways. I've had a lot of arguments over this from people saying it is "normal". It is not normal for a grown man to pimp out his kids to sell shit while making those kids look like prostitots.

Ghislaine

If I end up having a girl, I think I may have to move further into the woods, sell my TV, etc. to raise her.

As remind said, the parents are completely to blame (and other sick profiteering adults who think this is just business), not the 9 year old. 

Stargazer

Exactly Ghislaine.

 

Tommy, haha, the people who generally do not agree with me on the normalizing issue are parents whose kids watch Hannah Montanna.

Tommy_Paine

 

One of the disturbing elements of these shows like Zach and Cody and Hannah Montana etc., is the fact that the acting and writting is so bad, I'm sure it drives most parents out of the room. And, I don't think that's accidental.    Like so much these days, the title of something is really opposite of what it is.  There's no Learning on The Learning Chanel, and the whole family can't sit down to watch Hannah Montana on the purposefully missnamed "Family Chanel".

Parents successfully driven from the room, the show then moves to the lifestyles of kids who have either little or no parental supervision in thier lives.   Check out "I, Carly." 

 

I mean, Stargazer, you KNOW I am not some old cranky prude.  I'm kinky as all get out, and probably far too open about sex if anything.  But, (coals to Newcastle here) this isn't about "sex"  it's something darker.  It isn't allowing kids to explore thier own sexuality, it's about conditioning them to one.   And, while the focus is on girls here, rest assured it's conditioning our boys, too.

I know it's "normal" for girls to dress up when their young, to experiment with make up, emulate their mothers and other grown up women, like boys emulate their fathers and such.   And, you let them play.  But you don't encourage that behavior down at Younge and Bloor.  

Or on national T.V.

Tommy_Paine

I get what you're saying but I went over to have dinner with my niece for her birthday the other night and couldn't believe the stuff in shows she was watching.  Was it Zach and Cody?

 

I hate to ban things.  I really do.   I mean, I would not have linked to the page Doug did, but as much as I disagree with it being here I have to repect that not everyone's judgement is mine, and I'm not always right.  And, I have left that alone and only bring it up as an example.

 

So, putting a block on "The Family Chanel"  was a last resort here.   Snarfy the Wonder Girl isn't the first daughter I have raised.  So, I know there is a bit of importance on kids fitting in, and part of that is pop culture.  Everything in balance, everything in moderation.  With my older girls, I would analyse stuff I didn't like with them, got them to look at it critically, and that sufficed.

 

But, Snarfy the Wonder Girl is very creative artistically, and while my other girls are too, they express it more through drawing, while Snarfy does it through that, but also song and dance.   So, she's more attracted to shows where girls just a little older than her perform.  So the analytical approach just wasn't working.

 

And let me tell you, these Disney shows are sick on a lot of different levels.

 

So, Rebecca West, who views censorship much the same way I do, took the unusual step in blocking this crap entirely.

 

I've had a lot of arguments over this from people saying it is "normal".

 

That's exactly opposite from my experience, Stargazer.   This subject comes up (not always because I bring it up) amoung facebook friends, co-workers, corporeal friends, family, strangers and I have heard nothing but universal condemnation.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doug

I don't see how the thread is disgusting itself, even though it's about something disgusting. Forcing children into adult moulds is an issue, whether it's this, the whole child pageant thing or other instances of it. I don't think I was in danger of vastly increasing sales of kiddie hotpants by linking it here. Perhaps there may have been a better article about it I should have looked for.

Tommy_Paine

Oh, don't get me wrong, Doug.  I'm not saying you did something wrong or are complicit or anything like that.  I think this subject isn't addressed often enough, to be honest, nor deep enough.  I would have done it different, maybe, but that doesn't make you wrong. 

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

There's no Learning on The Learning Chanel, and the whole family can't sit down to watch Hannah Montana on the purposefully missnamed "Family Chanel".

There's very little history on the History Channel either. 

I saw a bit of something - it may have been "Hannah Montana" - on the Family Channel at the rink last week.  It just looked dumb to me, but then, so does most "adult" programming.

 

So who owns these channels?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

No feminism on the Woman's Channel either just endless chic flicks that reinforce the status quo as good for women if they can only find a man.

The only channel that is living up to its name on my TV is the Knowledge Network.  They are helping produce and are airing lots of FN's history and other BC knowledge.  Mind you they fill in with British programs that are sometimes only marginally better than American drivel.

The sexualizing of young women is something that really appalls me and I see it as a control mechanism. Teaching a 9 year old or 12 year old to dress and present like a hooker is evil.

Ghislaine

kropotkin: had to continue the drift to agree about the Knowledge Network. I am four hrs ahead of BC time, so I get kids shows until about 11 at night - but the content is wonderful.

oldgoat

remind wrote:

Quote:
Seems like every time we hear about Noah Cyrus she's doing something totally innapropriate for her age.

Whether it's dressing like a dominatrix for Halloween, skipping around a pole-dancing pole or performing the totally un-PG hits 'Smack That' and 'Tik Tok', we suspect this nine-year-old could easily notch up more scandals than her big sis by the time she hits her teens.

The bolded portions are stating it is her actions, not her parents actions doing this to her.

From the article in the OP

 

heywood I did not see your comments as some judgement on the child, I saw your use of the work fuck completely inappropriate, in respect to the reality people are  sexualizing  a 9 year old.

 

As I stated before this thread needs to be closed, it is disgusting...

 

I think this is certainly a topic which should be discussed, but I think remind raises some important points in terms of framing.  As remind highlighted, "Noah Cyrus, she's doing something inappropriate".  No she isn't.  That puts the blame, and the problem, squarely on her small and undeserving shoulders.   She is a child, and is having very bad things done to her by an immoral and venal society, and with the active complicity of her parents who should be protecting her from this crap.

They are not her scandals, they are not her sisters scandals. 

 

In terms of Heywood, well I'm just not over hearing our Heywood drop the F bomb like that.

 

So, That Doug, whos creds as a babbler are pretty impeccable posted as he did can stand as a lesson in how we can fall into looking at things through the sick and dysfunctional lenses that society has given us.

If we can come away from this thread with some sort of a lesson learned then I'd say keep it open.  Say Doug, (or anyone)  if we were going back in time, what would make a good OP for this issue?

Doug

I'd go look for a better article now but I'd rather not google for "Noah Cyrus lingerie" here at work. Or anywhere, really, but home would be better!

Stargazer

Yes oldgoat, what you say in your post is true, however, no one here said it was okay to sexualize these kids and not one person blamed it on the girls. Not one. We are adults here and judging by the posts it is pretty clear we're all seeing the same thing. I understand remind's anger, but it was misdirected at Doug.

Yes perhaps he could have found a better article with more depth but hey, that is where we come in.

Pop Culture and all its torridness is not going anywhere. Bitch magazine continually uses and discusses the effects of pop culture on women, girls and men. I think we can easily do that here without being told we're blaming the victim. We can use actual pop culture articles as they are, and tear them down. We can't just push it away, pretend it doesn't exist etc.  This is the stuff the majority of people read. We should be allowed to post about it and deconstruct it without being unfairly maligned. 

Perhaps we can discuss the fact that this article blames the kid for this new trend, and gives no mention whatsoever to the role of her father and mother in this.

Does anyone remember the photo shoot of a half naked underage Miley Cyrus and her father? That was disturbing to me.

Oldgoat, there are so many aspects to this story: the sexualization of young girls, exploitation of one's children to make a buck, inappropriate relationships, etc.

oldgoat

I'm certainly not mad at Doug, I'm analysing the sentence in the OP, and how it frames the message. 

p-sto

At the risk of being unpopular I'd say leave the opening sentence alone. The situation is quite inappropriate for some one of Noah's age.

Perhaps to better focus the conversation add qualifiers with a similiar tone to the following after the link to the article.

1. A young girl is being exploited and abused
2. Young girls are being encouraged to be sexual at an extremely young age
3. The main stream media would sooner mock this poor girl and the situation as opposed to having a serious discussion on what is happening and what it implies

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

p-sto wrote:

Perhaps to better focus the conversation add qualifiers with a similiar tone to the following after the link to the article.

1. A young girl is being exploited and abused

2. Young girls are being encouraged to be sexual at an extremely young age

3. The main stream media would sooner mock this poor girl and the situation as opposed to having a serious discussion on what is happening and what it implies

 

Well said. 

Stargazer

Yes, well said. Point 3 needs to be discussed more often.

 

 

Doug

Beyond all that, it's just not very good fashion. Those clothes are supposed to accentuate the body of a developed woman. You put girls in them and you may as well have left the clothes hanging on hangers.

Stargazer

Well new developments on this story. The owners of the clothing line are claiming that they run a "mom and mom shop" and that they only sell tutus and not lingerie, which may be true (to them) but if you look at the clothes, knee high lace up boots?? Come on! They claim to not have known this was hypersexualizing girls. I call BS on that one.

Anyways, here is a link to the story (I blame Perez Hilton too!)

http://www.cnbc.com/id/35223748

Here is a link to their collection:

http://www.oohlalacouture.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=collection.list

 

Tommy_Paine

 

Well, BS or not, it shows that they are feeling the heat and paying a price.   Other business may take a cue from that, and, hopeing beyond all hope, the rest of the industry, and if there was a god,  Billy Ray dickwad. 

 

I'd like to believe that this might just be the high tide mark for this disgusting trend, and a backlash will start because of it.

But it's Hollywood, the home of the bottomless barrel.

 

Doug

Seven year-old Rio Carnival Queen bursts into tears

 

Julia Lira became the youngest drum corps queen in memory, but her role has sparked much debate in Brazil.

A judge had earlier over-ruled objections from a child rights agency that said it was inappropriate given the carnival's sexual focus.

 

Another child being made to take on too much while wearing too little.