Posts Tagged ‘sexualization’

Blog author Melissa Wardy, circa 1981.

That is me, to the left, as a four year old in 1981. I’ll give you a minute to take in my hair.

I am, very obviously, quite awesome in my Wonder Woman costume.

Know what I am not? Sexy. At four years old, I was not sexy. There is nothing sexy about a four year old. Any four year old. EVER.

My parents knew this, which is why I was very appropriately dressed for a chilly night of trick-or-treating in the Pittsburgh suburbs with a turtleneck, warm tights under my 80′s track shorts, and high top sneakers. I am the four year old version of Wonder Woman, a homemade costume thanks to my very creative mother (who would have just given birth to her third child in 4 years).

I always wore homemade Halloween costumes, right up until 6th grade when I was a gypsy fortune teller and enjoyed my last year of trick-or-treating. My mother wasn’t a seamstress, she just expected us to be creative and thrifty. When I worked as a nanny in college, we largely pieced together the kid’s costumes from stuff we had at home.

Then something happened, and I can’t quite put my finger on how or why, but Halloween became porny.

In these parts, starting mid-August, the Halloween super-stores move into vacant retail space with a short term lease and a truck load of cheaply-made costumes fresh off the Chinese shipping container, all of which resemble porny versions of character xyz in what is essentially a repackaged French maid uniform. If you cut out the busty, leggy models wearing the costumes and stacked the photos on top of each other, they would all look the same. The formula is so predictable, it is boring: tight lace-up bodice revealing a lot of boob, short petti-coat skirt, knee high socks or a pair of fishnets and tall boots. Throw in a lollipop and pair of roller skates and you’ve got a 70′s adult film.

Actually, the whole pornography tie-in isn’t all that far off. In my local Halloween super store, my kids call it the Goody Bloody Store, almost all of the costumes they carry are by a company called Leg Avenue. On the website the costumes look very pretty….in the store they looked thin and cheap. Leg Avenue also makes lingerie, burlesque show wear, club wear, and pasties. Some of their stuff is tasteful – very sexy and very adult. As a sex positive adult, I can appreciate that. But it just seems odd to me that I can go from the page selling pasties and burlesque booty shorts and in three clicks be on Cutie Bug or Beautiful Butterfly costume, size Child Small. My real problem with the costumes is that the evolution of a child’s costume to teen costume to adult costume isn’t that far off from each other. They all fit the French maid costume equation, and the youth costumes carry culturally coded wardrobe components that, in the past, had been signals for adult sex work: fishnets, lace up bodices, bustiers, high heeled knee-high boots, knee socks and bare upper thighs, booty shorts, etc.

Somewhere along the line, Halloween stopped being about scariness and fantasy, and became a holiday of packaged sex. When every store you go in to is carrying these sexy children’s costumes, and has been for years, it stops being a one-season market fluke, and becomes a reflection of our culture. What the market bears is a litmus test of our society.

What the Halloween market (and girls’ toy market and tween clothing market and ex-Disney-star media market) has proven is that culturally we seem to have no problem with our girls becoming sexually objectified, and that no age is too young for this. How the heads of parents are not exploding nationwide is beyond me. Our young daughters are being encouraged to trick-or-treat in costumes that make them look like the girl who shows up to a bachelor party carrying her own boom box and a pair of handcuffs.

But the market bears it, because collectively we buy it. For those of us not buying it, too few of us are speaking up against it. The children aren’t to blame, they don’t know better, and they naturally want to be/feel/appear grown up. How many parents are taking the time to go up to the store manager and express their disappointment over the sexy costumes choices offered, and make the point that their money will be spent elsewhere? How many parents are organizing costume exchange parties, or setting up clothing swap tables in someones driveway to piece together creative, homemade costumes? How many parents are calling school, expressing concern that on Halloween dress up day, the 5th grade girls were dressed as Little Lolitas while the boys had costumes that kept them fully covered? How many parents have given up on creativity and are buying the Rainbow Cutie costume for $26.99? How many girls are getting the message to project their sexuality as a display for others, rather than a feeling and experience inside?

Going one step further, what message does it send to the men and boys who view our daughters? When we allow them to dress at young ages in this highly sexualized way, we not only support an industry that thrives on sexually objectifying women, we are reinforcing the sexist views some men/boys may hold and the notion that females are just sexual playthings. What message do we send to predators who are already viewing our young daughters as sex objects? We are telling them that their sexual feelings towards children are not all that taboo, that as parents we are allowing that bar to slide. Parents who buy these costumes and allow their children to wear them, especially in public, reinforce the notion that it is not taboo to have sexual fantasy touch the life of a child. Children as sexual playthings is a taboo that must stay firmly in place.

So while I roll my eyes at the predictability of all of these sexy Halloween costumes reflecting the very male San Fernando Valley porny gaze, I also get a chill down my spine because of the lack of outrage from parents. Just as 1973 Deep Throat pornography star Linda Lovelace foresaw, pornography has indeed become mainstream, and it is now available in children’s sizes. That? Is terrifying to me.

Kids Police Officer costume.

Adult Police costume.

Child's Lion costume.

Adult Wild Kitty costume.

Pigtail Pals has been working since May of 2009 to change the way people think about girls. We have put more positive images and apparel on the market for girls. We have written hundreds of blog posts educating parents about gender stereotypes in children’s products and media, early sexualization in childhood, and body image in young girls. But are we making a dent?

I just found this magazine page (Parents) from June 2007. My mom sent it to me, with a sticky note, saying “You need to do your tshirt idea, look how bad these dolls are!”

What is your version of girlhood? I know mine.

This image was from 2007. Things have gotten worse since then. I’ll spare you the gory statistics for another post with regard to the harms of sexualization, the epidemic of poor body image in girls, and the dollars these marketers are earning off of our girls.

Right now, I want to hear from you….What issues are you concerned about or confused about or need more info on when it comes to raising a confident, healthy daughter? We have several thousand new readers to the blog, so I want to be giving you the best information, and information you need. We need to work together to save girlhood.

Let me hear what  you need.

#SAVEGIRLHOOD

There is a lot of buzz in the news lately about this issue of sexualization and what it means for our daughters. I spend every day talking with thousands of parents through social media, and I know there are a lot of questions out there. When I present my workshops, they have run up two two hours in length as parents ask questions, and connect the dots.

I know it seems confusing and frustrating for parents as they try to figure out how to best raise their children in a culture soaked in objectified sexual images. This stuff comes at our kids so early, and by the time they are teens, it might seem impossible to raise them into a self-respecting, healthy adult.

It is not impossible, and I’ve gathered a team of experts to address your questions. The media isn’t doing this for us, they aren’t a solutions-based entity. They tell us about the problems, but it is up to us to fix it. We are, after all, the guardians of our children.

(Although….Helloooooo, Media? Throw parents a bone here! Start talking about the good.)

JOIN US! This Thursday Sept 8th at 9pm EST/8pm CST for a chat on Twitter. Follow hash tag  #savegirlhood for the conversation. Add it to the end of a tweet so that we can see a question or comment you make.

You’ll want to follow @PigtailPals, @BeABetterWoman, @AudreyBrashich, @DrRobyn, and @Nancy_Newmoon.

We’ll also be carrying the discussion over to the Pigtail Pals facebook page.

Consider this a huge town hall meeting, we just won’t be face to face. But we will be talking!

You’ve got the questions, we’ve got the answers. And when we all come together, our girls will shine.

A few introductions, so that you can get to know the powerful crew available to talk directly with you on Thursday night.

Audrey Brashich

Audrey Brashich has been involved in teen and women’s journalism since 1993. She’s worked and written for magazines such as Sassy, YM, Seventeen, Elle Girl, Cosmo Girl, Teen People, Lucky, Shape, Ms., Health and others. Her work focuses primarily on body image and understanding media influences–and she’s the author of  All Made Up: A Girl’s Guide to Seeing Through Celebrity Hype and Celebrating Real Beauty (Walker Books for Young Readers, 2006).

Audrey has appeared on TV and radio in the US and Canada (CNN, NBC, CBS, Canada’s CBC).  Her commentary has also appeared in USA TODAY, The Vancouver Sun, The Seattle Times, The San Diego Union Tribune, The Toronto Star and many others. She’s served on the board of directors for Mind on the Media, a non-profit organization dedicated to fostering critical analysis of media messages, and consulted with national organizations such as Girls Inc. on their programming and policies for girls.

Audrey is a graduate of Trinity College in Hartford, CT, and holds a master’s degree in pop culture & gender studies from Brown University.”

Amy Harman

Amy Harman is a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist and a wife and mother.  She has worked as a therapist for several years, most recently as a therapist for women and girls with eating disorders.  Because of her work with women and the examples of strong women around her, she has developed a desire help women realize their worth. While taking a break from working full-time, she has created a website to empower women by strengthening relationships and improving mental and emotional well-being.  Visit her blog at becomingabetterwoman.com, follower her on Twitter @beabetterwoman, or like her Facebook page.

Amy is concerned about the sexualization of young girls because part of becoming a better woman is leaving a better world to those who will be the women of tomorrow.  In working with girls struggling with eating disorders, she has seen the harmful impact sexualized messages can make on young minds.  She believes we have a duty to teach children the positive aspects of womanhood through example, discussion, and activism. 

Dr. Robyn Silverman

Dr. Robyn Silverman is a body image expert, parenting resource and child & teen development specialist who appears regularly on national TV such as The Today Show and Good Morning America. An award-winning writer, professional speaker and success coach, she has been the content consultant for 17 books and writes a character education/leadership curriculum called Powerful Words for top level after-school programs worldwide. Her most recent book, Good Girls Don’t Get Fat: How Weight Obsession is Messing Up Our Girls and How We Can Help Them Thrive Despite It, is based on her passion to help all girls reach their potential and highlight their strengths rather than their deficits. To learn more, please visit DrRobynSilverman.com, follow her on Facebook at Facebook.com/DrRobynSilverman, or on www.twitter.com/DrRobyn.

Nancy Gruver

Nancy Gruver is founder of the groundbreaking safe social network and magazine for girls ages 8 and up, New Moon Girls, author of How To Say It® To Girls: Communicating With Your Growing Daughter (Penguin Putnam, 2004) and blogs on girls’ issues, parenting, and media.  www.newmoon.com & www.daughters.com

And finally…..

Melissa Wardy

Melissa Wardy is the creator/owner of Pigtail Pals www.pigtailpals.com. A business owner, writer, and children’s advocate, her work has appeared on CNN, FOX News, and in the Ms. Magazine blog. She is the mom to a 5yo girl and 3yo boy and wants to see some big changes in the children’s marketplace.  What originally began in 2009 as an empowering online t-shirt shop for little girls has now grown into a large online boutique that carries  goods with the message to Redefine Girly and recognize our girls as “Smart ~ Daring ~ Adventurous”. We also have a line of tees for little boys called Curious Crickets.

In 2010 Melissa began the Redefine Girly blog to educate parents on issues of gender stereotypes and sexualization that our children face. The blog and parent community quickly became known as the go-to place for parents to discuss these issues. In 2011 Melissa started presenting Media Literacy workshops for parents and educators helping them to understand how girlhood was changing, and in 2012 you’ll be able to read her book that brings everything full circle. Let’s change the way we think about our girls.

Walk with me, now, and see the forest through the trees.

The JC Penney T-shirt Gate is actually not about a t-shirt. Kind of like the Holy Roman Empire being neither holy nor Roman. Confusing, I know.

This entire viral uproar is over parents and other concerned individuals being sick and tired of  the pervasive message marketed everywhere to our daughters that being pretty and obsessed with boys and shopping (maybe cupcakes and puppies as Anderson Cooper points out) is what being a girl is all about. It has come to define girlhood, and nearly every product made for them. Walk through any clothing department or toy aisle — what messages do you see for girls? What messages do you see for boys? It is gender apartheid, and our daugthers ended up with the short end of the stick.

I call bullshit. While JC Penney took one shirt down, as I said on Tuesday night, they’ve got another dozen that continue to sell girls short. A JC Penney juniors buyer purchased these shirts, in dozens of styles, from a manufacturer; another employee wrote the offensive and sexist online product descriptions. This doesn’t seem to be a one-time mistake. This seems to be a pattern of selling girls short. I don’t see the funny.

Pigtail Pals has been here since 2009 fighting to put better products and messages in the marketplace for girls. We’ve been blogging and directing an amazing Parent Community to fight for our kids. And we’re not about to change our message. 

We created a tee in direct response to the garbage at JC Penney. It is selling like wildfire. And it ought to, because pretty’s got nothing to do with it.

I’d like to see the media focus on THIS tee, instead of the one at JC Penney. We need to change the way we think about our girls.

Pigtail Pals new tee, available on eight colors 3T - Ladies.

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I also want to set the the record straight for clothing label Self Esteem, owned by All Access Apparel, who unfortunately was brought into this by media and bloggers who did not check their facts. The LA clothing company Self Esteem is NOT the manufacturer of the tees in question.

Unfortunately, no one at Self Esteem was ever contacted to confirm that they indeed were the manufacturer of the T-shirt. The company was associated with the shirt because they were grouped on the JCPenney website where the ‘Too Pretty’ shirt was displayed.

“This huge oversight on the part of the media and concerned mothers has caused our company’s name to be defamed not only with one of our largest customers, JCPenney, but with our entire customer base,” said President of Self Esteem Richard Clareman. “We have always and will continue to promote positive messages to young girls.”

Tomorrow I send my child to her first day of school. Her first day of kindergarten. Her first day of formal education in a public school with years and years and years of learning to follow.

So I’ll ask you kindly to get out of her way, JC Penney. You too, Orbeez and Skechers. Mattel and your Monster High, we’ve already had words.

My daughter will not be sent to school with the message from her parents that she is inadequate. She will not be taught that she is incapable of learning, and mastering, what is taught to her at school. She will not be treated as though she were delicate. Tea cups are delicate, girls are not. She will not be encouraged, at the tender age of five, to be “flirty” or “sugarlicious”. Over my dead body will I give her the message that her beauty is her worth, or that at the age of five, she should be sexually objectifying herself. I take great issue with that notion, and it burns me to the core.

So this crap? Will NOT be coming into my home. Will NOT be poisoning my daughter’s self-image. Will NOT be teaching my son to sell girls short.  Stop selling shitty messages to my kids.

Exhibit A: JC Penney ‘self-esteem’ tee Too Pretty to do Homework

JC Penny thinks girls are too pretty to do homework.

Despite the direct contradiction to their charity Pennies From Heaven, this shirt teaches girls to expect very little from themselves, that their looks supercede their intellect, and that ‘being pretty’ will get you by. Pretty’s got nothing to do with school. Oh, and that little notion that the academic work should be left to the boys. In 2011, we are teaching the grand daughters of the Women’s Lib movement to forsake their education and have their looks be their main focus.

You can petition JC Penney and their shitty shirt right HERE. Even if they pull this shirt, they’ve got another dozen just like it.

So don’t buy it, right? It is just one shirt. Right?

Wrong. WRONG.

It is the culture of consumer beauty and self-objectified sex surrounding our girls that drips right off a script page from a Kardashian-esque reality tv show. The message that beauty and sexiness measure a woman’s worth, and that one can never be too young to focus on these things.

Exhibit B: Orbeez Soothing Spa with magic rainbow de-stressing beads, for that stressed-out 11yo in your life. Because, OMG, school is just like soooooo freaking hard! You can watch the commercial HERE.

Orbeez wants you to know that school is hard!

Orbeez wants you to know that foot spas help your hurting brain from all that learning!

Who needs hard things, like learning, when you can relax at the spa and work on your pretty. How I went through my entire girlhood in the absense of spa products and services usually reserved for adult women of a certain income and lifestyle, I’ll never know.

Learning hurts! Pretty is fun!

Exhibit C: Mattel Monster High Monster Mash backpack …because prostitute-chic NEVER goes out of style for the under-10 set, and when sending our daughters to school, who doesn’t want them to aim to be a Hollywood Boulevard hooker?

Now your favorite friendly prostitutes can go with you to school! Whee!

I like the sparkle. Don't like sexual innuendo on my little daughter's feet.

Pre-schoolers and Gradschoolers do NOT need to be 'flirty'.

Anyhoo….let’s change the way we think about our girls. Let’s do better. They deserve it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Update: Make sure to check out our NEW TEE created in response to the JC Penney tee. It is selling like wildfire! Let’s all build girls up, not sell them short.

Pigtail Pals created a new tee, availabe in eight colors sizes 3T - Ladies.

Jours Apres Lunes, a new line of lingerie for very little girls.

Or maybe it is that I firmly believe there is no need to package our little girls for sex.

Lingerie, from its beginning, has been used to seduce and titillate while the wearer is being gazed upon. In modern days, it is meant to be gift wrapping for bedroom play and sex. Alluring, erotic. And now it comes in Size 4. In fact, now thanks to Jours Aprel Lunes, families can even purchase Mommy & Me matching lingerie, which I truly hope leaves penises shriveling and falling off at the thought.

In 2003 the global lingerie market peaked at $29 billion. And to think, despite Candie’s best efforts, the children’s true lingerie market had not yet been cornered.

Instead of talking about if this is right or wrong, how horrible the sexualization and sexploitation of childhood is, how our daughters are being damaged by messages coming at them so early that their ability to be beautiful and sexy will define their worth and that their not-yet developed sexuality will be a performance for others instead of something innate….

Let’s desconstruct what this is really about, because I heard some absurd things when this was discussed:

1. “Little girls like to play dress up and look like Mommy.”

Okay, sure, kids like to play dress up. Except, this photo shoot isn’t playing dress up. It is very young girls wearing make-up and sexy Brigitte Bardot bedroom hair styled by adults while posing at the instruction of the photographer.

And when playing dress up in Mommy’s things, they are a visitor to Mommy’s world, so things are too big and don’t fit. Because those things weren’t made for them, they were made for Mommy. But we’re talking about lingerie made to fit little girls. Made just for them. There is an adorable awkwardness in clomping down the hall in high heels and a dress many times too big. This usually includes drastic over-accessorization of every piece of jewelry owned and sloppily-applied make-up. I don’t know about you, but when my kids play dress up, my drawer of lingerie and bedroom toys is off limits. Why? Because that is a part of my adult marriage and adult sexuality they have no business being a part of. I don’t think that makes me a prude. That makes me a parent.

So let’s be clear, this isn’t dress up. Now, maybe after purchase of the kiddie lingerie, a little girl at home would wear her fancy Jours underthings for dress up. I just don’t think my five year old needs diamond-encrusted satin panties.

2. “Saying that a woman wears pretty undergarments because they expect to be undressed for sex, also bad.” And “not always why I wear it… I would say it’s made to make me feel (when properly fitting, of course) feminine, sensual, attractive, etc”.

What I said, for the record, is that the ‘lingerie is gift wrapping for sex’. There are definitely women who like to wear lingerie for the sake of wearing lingerie, sex or no sex. Fancy bras and panties are a perk to being a grown woman. But I think it is safe to say that the majority of people wearing lingerie, the majority of times they wear it, is to be seductive in the boudoir and to be gazed upon. Now we have a children’s version, which makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit. Let’s remember, Victoria’s Secret was created by a man, to make a more comfortable and easy shopping experience for men buying items for their romantic interests. The lingerie market was created and largely exists for sex and seduction, to be gazed at while wearing garments that accentuate the adult body in a sexual manner. Wearing lingerie is about sex or feeling sexy. And none of that has to do with being a five year old.

3. “There’s a very fine line between teaching girls that their sexuality is nothing to be ashamed of, and not pushing them into too much, too soon.”

 I don’t think that fine line calls for kiddie lingerie. Itty bitty lingerie no more instills healthy sexuality in a child than a push-up brainstills confidence in a teen. I don’t think that line is so fine. I can teach my daughter to be sex positive and I can be supportive and a trusted source of information for her as her sexuality develops at an age appropriate pace. I can teach her to respect and love her body without having to watch her skip right over her girlhood and hop into mini-womanhood. She’ll become a woman, and I am in no rush to get there. Because I raise her with the right messages, neither is she.

4. “I bet pedophiles are loving this. Now they have these images….” And  ”How many pedophiles work for this company?”

Let’s answer the second question first: Most likely zero. People who sexualize little children are more often than not, not pedophiles. They develop a product that has a market, and they sell. This is about dollars, not sex. I don’t think the people at Mattel who make Monster High are pedophiles any more than I do the folks at Submarine Kidsor Abercrombie & Fitch. I do think they are people who lapse some serious good judgement when it comes to children’s product development and marketing to kids.

Now for the pedophile stuff – Friends, these images don’t hold a candle to actual child porn, and if you knew the seeminly innocuous images that get certain pedophiles off on, you wouldn’t let your kids out of your house. Your child is more at risk of coming into contact with an older or same age family member, playmate, neighbor (adult or child), or school mate for whom products and advertising like this blur the line of taboo around kids and sex. That’s a line I don’t want smudged.

While child sexual abuse, online pornography, and pedophilia do exist as dangers to our children, the real and more tangible concern with early sexualization is what messages our kids, boys and girls, are learning about gender and sexuality: how girls/women should look, act, and how adult sexuality is projected. This leads to a whole host of problems like low self-esteem, depression, eating disorders, early promiscuity, risky sexual behavior, poor performance in school, and an unhealthy development of sexuality at a very crucial age for young people.

5. “I don’t think I would have had any idea I was being sexualized, and since my parents would never have let me pose in my underwear in a public forum under any circumstances (and it never would have occurred to me to want to), I don’t think anyone else would have had the opportunity to sexualize me either.” And “If no one involved, including the children, notice it happening, then how is it happening exactly?”

That is the beast of sexualization, isn’t it? Children don’t understand that it is happening to them. How would they? That doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. If I have a pot boiling on the stove and I leave the room as it boils over, I may not see it happening, but I still have a mess to clean up. Sexualization doesn’t have to take place in public, and sexualization is not the same as sexual abuse.

Sexualization is an emotional  and/or physical experience, often many moments and messages over the course of time, that teach the subject unhealthy values about sexuality.

From the American Psychological Association’s 2007 Task Force On The Sexualization of Girls -

There are several components to sexualization, and these set it apart from healthy sexuality. Sexualization occurs when

• a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;
• a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;
• a person is sexually objectified—that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or
• sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.

6. “I think saying ‘my daughter wants to be like me and she may by any means she chooses EXCEPT the things I do because they make me feel pretty’ is…bizarre. Girls are allowed to want to be attractive.”

I think all living creatures are looking for acceptance, and a part of that comes from being found attractive. But in girlhood, that shouldn’t come from being sexy. Trying on Mommy’s dresses and make-up and painting toes is one thing – both totally normal and age appropriate, while keeping in check the focus and emphasis on “being pretty”. Trying on mini, child version of the type of lingerie Mommy would wear to seduce Daddy while away on an anniversary weekend? Not okay. Disgusting, really.

Playing with hairstyles and clips and updo’s – totally normal and age appropriate. Sitting at a photoshoot getting a Brigette Bardo bombshell updo to model lingerie made for kids? Are ya kidding me? Not. Okay.

There are some things adults do because they are adults that have no place in childhood.

Girls are allowed to want to feel pretty and should spend a small portion of their girlhood experimenting with hair and make-up and dress up and that kind of stuff. That is not what this is about.

It is all about allowing our children to be children, and not rushing them in sexuality and adulthood. It is about seeing the value in our girls enjoying and thriving in girlhood. If we do that, we’ll be raising a great bunch of young women.

To continue the conversations about these topics, join us, we’ve got one lively and smart Parent Community on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/PigtailPals

The child may be beautiful. The photographs are certainly done with a keen eye for art and fashion.

She is so young, so baby faced and clearly pre-pubescent, that it feels awkward to consider the idea that these photos carry a sexual innuendo because we know we are looking at a very young girl.                                                  

Yet they do. Implied nudityand fetishized props and sultry, “Come hither” stares, arched backs, slightly parted lips or fingers playfully, suggestively around the mouth…..

We’re talking about a 10 year old girl. A child, ten years of age. Not old enough to babysit, but apparently old enough to be posed in photos so ripe with sexual innuedo it drips off of the page with a stank.

Sexual innuendo has no place near a 10 year girl, regardless of if she is wearing high fashion or the photographer is famous or that she is French and was posing for a French fashion magazine.  I’m not sure this can be considered “art”, as I think art loses it’s integrity at the expense of an exploited child.

None of this would come naturally to the little girl, she is being coached by the photographer to pose this way. She is being taught how to project adult sexuality. She is being coached to become an object of sexual fantasy. She is being sexualized. She has been shot this way many times, which tells me neither her parents nor her agent have an issue with the photographs they are signing off on.

She is losing her childhood, and the cultural acceptance of this actually consumes so many little girls and parts of their girlhood it has become a national health crisis. The issue isn’t just about Thylane, the girl you see above, or even her mother who was only upset over the expense of a necklace the child wore and begrudgingly shut down the child’s facebook and tumblr pages. The issue here is ALL girls. There seems to be a rush for our daughters to grow up, to become little women. Sexy little women. Their natural born right to be a child is being interrupted by apathetic adults.

There seems to be something about certain parents, who live vicariously through the youth and vibrant beauty of these little, amazing girl creatures. They find it acceptable to sexualize their little girls, make dozens of excuses for it, but then lash out at the criticism by those who know how very dangerous this is.  Dangerous both for the child’s self-worth directly receiving these age-inappropriate messages, and to girls everywhere who have had one more peg of taboo slide out; a taboo meant to protect them from what should be a universal truth that little girls are not sex objects nor sex partners.

We are losing our girls to sexualization as parents permit toys that look like hookers, magazines that eat up starving young models, celebrities to act as role models, and corporations and media who profit off of the whole mess by making it extremely difficult for parents to afford or find better choices. And those are just the girls lucky enough to be born in America. In other parts of the world they are turned into brides and prostitutes as young as the age of five.

Young Thylane and her mother are just a symptom of the problem. The problem, you see, is that there continues to be a market for sexualized little girls.

I fear there always will be. Until parents start to do better, and demand better for our daughters, our little girls will continue to get lost. I just wonder, can we get them back?

On June 22nd I wrote a post in the form of an open letter to Deborah Soriano, CEO of Submarine Kids, a swimwear company from Miami. The post had over 14,000 views, 220-some comments, and I couldn’t keep track of how many of you told me that you had contacted Submarine to express your disgust.

I never heard much from Deborah, just a vague threat about “hearing from her attorney”. I was never contacted by her attorney, but was emailed three separate times by her business partner and the company’s social media manager, Charlene Friedrichs, to address such issues as my hair, my weight, my ugliness, my daughter’s ugliness, my bitchiness, my ugly website, and my poor husband who she hoped was blind.

My ugliness aside, Submarine didn’t seem to be understanding the issue — the sexualized images of the young girls they were using to aide them in the selling of their swimwear. Deborah Soriano spoke to CNN reporter Richelle Carey when they ran this piece from my original blog post, and Deborah went on public record to say she didn’t realize the images were offensive, and that they were just little girls playing dress up. I quote, “…girls having fun, playing ‘grown-up’ with wigs and make-up and nothing more.”

Hey Deb? When little girls play dress up, they don’t elicit comments from pedophiles about how their pursed lips are so sexy they just jerked off, and that the child would be good at oral sex and then desired for anal rape. Because that comment? That comment came in to the blog over the weekend because of the image below. And yesterday I had a police officer at my kitchen table, reviewing my blog, a screen shot of the unpublished and profane comment and IP address it came from, and  your website for Submarine Kids.

Image on homepage of Submarine Kids

Now, Debbie, I don’t know how y’all at Submarine Kids do business, but if that were my company getting that kind of response from men who want to rape little girls because of the photos on my website turned them on? Well, I’d feel like a real shithead. Of course Submarine Kids has no legal liability or responsibility over the perverted creep who wrote the comment….or do they?

When will we start to take corporate pedophilia seriously?

How is the sexualized marketing of our children and childhood products blurring that line of taboo between kids and sex? 

Candies or Abercrombie, want to weigh in? Mattel, do any of your Monster High characters have anything to say? What was that, Bratz? No? Nothing?

Huh.

Well, Debbo, if it were me, I’d sell my bathing suits this way. And I’d sleep at night, knowing I didn’t put children in danger or disgrace the beauty of childhood while trying to make a buck.

This is how Pigtail Pals would advertise swimsuits for girls.

My swimsuit marketing photos would show little girls playing, not vamped up with pursed lips and Lolita eyes.

Image from Submarine Kids (R)

Dear Deborah Soriano,

Yesterday I received a message from a reader of mine who had gotten an eblast from a company marketing your line of swimwear, with the tag line as being “kid-appropriate”. She was a little shocked, as was I, when we went to your website and found very young female models vamped up and posed provocatively in your Submarine swimwear line. Little girls do not wear wigs and make-up to the beach, nor does the way you have them posed come naturally to them. You have directly and willingly sexualized these young girls for your commercial purposes.

As a mother of a young girl and a children’s apparel manufacturer myself, the photos on your website make me extremely uneasy. I personally find them to have crossed the line of appropriateness. While not illegal or pornographic, you certainly are playing up the pending sexuality of these little girls to sell your garments. Deborah, I find that repulsive.

Image from Submarine Kids (R)

As a woman and as a fellow business owner, I ask that you take some time to examine your marketing practices, and consider a more appropriate and non-sexualizing approach when you shoot your next season’s release. Certainly you have creative staff on hand to allow your brand to continue to be trendy and hip without having to exploit children to make sales. Your company’s practices directly contribute to the culture of sexualization our children are forced to grow up in. There is no reason or excuse for it.

I frequent children’s boutiques regularly both for business and for my family’s personal shopping. When I see your brand in their retail spaces, I will be sure to mention to each and every shop owner my issues with the level of sexualization portrayed on your website, thus leaving me never wanting to purchase your clothing or swimwear for my own daughter.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss with you the issues around sexualization and perhaps help you craft some better business practices.

Best-

Melissa Wardy

Owner/Family Advocate Pigtail Pals, LLC

www.pigtailpals.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PUSH BACK: If you find Submarine Kids (R) marketing practices to cross the line and directly contradict the company’s release (click to enlarge), I encourage you to email or call owner Deborah Soriano at  deborah@submarineswim.com or 305-931-4196 and in a kind and graceful way explain why these images upset you.

Text and image from Submarine Kids (R)

2011 NBA Washigton Wizard Girls

Over the weekend I received an email from a member of our Parent Community, telling me about a questionable group of visitors to her first grade son’s after school program. The special guests? Scantily clad, bralette wearing Wizard Girls for the NBA’s Washingon Wizards. I’m told several of the dads took the opportunity to oggle during pickup. I wonder how that made the little girls at the program feel? Within the context of an elementary school program, held at the school, it all seems a tish inappropriate. And sexualizing. And incredibly non-educational.

The parents of the children in the afterschool program were not given advance notice of the Wizard Girls visit and dance performance, nor has it been determined why they were there and handing out marketing materials for the Washington Wizards….or why they were autographing posters to the young students of themselves in revealing clothing, posed suggestively.

The son of the Pigtail Pals Parent Community member brought the poster and other materials home, and told his parents he was confused and uncomfortable because the women (called girls on their website) were ‘naked’ and ‘in their underwear’. I can understand his confusion. When you are at the beach, you expect to see people’s bodies in swim suits. When you are at an NBA game, you can expect there will be a dance squad to take the court during timeouts and halftime. But at school, well…..

Poster brought home from school by 1st grade boy.

I’ll let guest blogger Penny Collins tell you more:

Today on Redefining Girly’s Facebook page, a ‘what would you do’ scenario was posted, sparking an 90+ comment throw-down. Needless to say, a nerve was hit. Melissa of Pigtail Pals – Redefine Girly asked: “What Would You Do?: Your 1st grade son comes home from school with marketing materials & poster for NBA cheerleaders. The women also performed for the children during an afterschool program. Your boy describes the women as being ‘naked’ and ‘in their underwear.’ Would you complain to the school?”

By the time I saw the post, the thread had hit 80 comments, and a fight was brewing. Is cheerleading a sport? Are we prudes for not wanting our children to see scantily clad adults at school? Are we setting different expectations for men and women? What defines a sport? What makes a uniform sexy or appropriate? Do volleyball players wear bum-flashing suits for the sport or for the cameras?

I didn’t weigh in at the time, because I was surreptitiously reading on my phone while riding in the car with my husband, and because the discussion had already gotten so far. My immediate thought was that professional cheerleading and competitive cheerleading are two different things. I have heard women define themselves as “dancers” for the NBA. That’s not an athletic cheerleader. High school and college competitive cheerleaders are serious, bad-ass athletes. And the ones I know would never take a job with the Lakers.

I found a website for a youth cheerleading competition in Troy, Ohio that appeals to participants in the most insulting way. They brag, “The Trojan Horse has been a successful Youth Football Tournament for three years now, but this year will be the first year we add something for the ladies of the sideline. So not only can you cheer your football team through the Tournament, but now you can compete for your own chance at the title!”

In one paragraph they take the athletics right out of it and put the girls in their place. Once the gals are done cheering on their men, they can have a little fun and go after a little trophy of their own! The site lists this reason for the competition: “because football season is never long enough.” For them, it’s really about the football. The ladies can just fill up the extra time when the real sport is over.

To me, it’s not about the cheerleading. It’s about athletics, and whether they are present or not. My child is too young for it now, but when she is older, I won’t be promoting professional cheerleading any more than I will be promoting the NBA itself. It’s commercialized, and it doesn’t feel like it’s about the sport. I’ll take my daughter to see high school and college athletics if I want to teach her about passion for a sport. I certainly won’t point out the Dallas cheerleaders on TV and suggest to her that they are role models.

Fit, talented young women in sneakers who are throwing their teammates to the sky in perfect lock step are athletes. Women who are wearing bedazzled push-up bras and fringed boots are not athletes. Don’t try and tell me that I’m being uptight, or ashamed of the human form, or discriminating against women. What I’m doing is raising the bar, and demanding more. I refuse to settle for the patronizing, sexualized options offered to my daughter.

All this aside, Redefining Girly is providing something that the media does not appreciate. And that’s a place to question, and debate, and think. Women are taught to be docile and agreeable. A man who argues or puts up a fight is a go-getter. A woman who does so is a bitch. I hope that the women who participated in yesterday’s debate realize that having the debate is most of the value. Without someone to spark the flame and wave a flag in our faces, many of us wouldn’t bother to examine the issue. It’s often easier to ignore these things, or blow them off, or be too tired to deal with it. When we come together and challenge each other, we are challenging ourselves to be better consumers, better parents, and better participants in our own world.

Penny Collins writes “It’s Not About the Baby” at http://notaboutbaby.blogspot.com

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So I ask, is it appropriate to have professional cheerleaders wearing sexualized dance costumes be guests at a school and hand out marketing materials to a for-profit sports teams? Does it matter that the children were a captive audience, and parents were not told ahead of time?

Can we use the argument that the professional cheerleaders are athletes? And that their uniform is part of their ‘sport’?

A high school squad of athletic cheerleaders displaying a great amount of skill.

A professional cheerleader displaying a great amount of something else.