Lingerie line for kids to be launched

Welcome to the world of Eastern European Child Porn/Slave Trade.

Kiddie lingerie has, unfortunately, been around for well over a decade for them.

Eastern Europe: making the stupid possible.

I've known a bunch of middle school girls who used to be anorexics.

They believed that being overly skinny is actually attractive.

I see the usual suspects of the "Pro-Government, Pro-Authority of Every Topic" crowd has bumbled into this thread as well. Not gonna name any names, but they know who they are. I guess they found the time in their day to stop crapping on anyone that isn't for the president or MSM propaganda and decided to support a suggestive pre-teen 'clothing' line.

Gee, what a shocker. Would never have expected that.

reply to post by Cantthinkofaname


I am 19 and female, and I feel the same way.

Don't even get me started on those Bratz dolls.

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by factbeforefiction

 

Ummmm where have you been.......Billy Ray Cyrus is one of the most influential people in his daughter's lives. In fact I don't think I've ever even seen his wife or Miley or Noah's mothers.

It's not about Billy Ray Cyrus, it's about the people who purchase these things or otherwise provide the market from which to extract revenue generated by advertising.

In absence of that market, these things would not happen, and that market is absolutely dominated by single mothers, or mothers who have custody of their daughters.

yes u will see this kind of thing all over now. but imagine if that girl is doing those type of things at age 9.. imagine how she will be at age 14. i mean the teen pregnancy rate has gone up dramatically in the last 10 years. it is absolutely disgusting to read stuff like this and believe little girls really act this way!!

Originally posted by factbeforefiction

In absence of that market, these things would not happen, and that market is absolutely dominated by single mothers, or mothers who have custody of their daughters.

That is a very interesting and valid line of reasoning to pursue.

Does the free market corrode moral character?

Originally posted by factbeforefiction
It's not about Billy Ray Cyrus, it's about the people who purchase these things or otherwise provide the market from which to extract revenue generated by advertising.

In absence of that market, these things would not happen, and that market is absolutely dominated by single mothers, or mothers who have custody of their daughters.

Agreed to an extent - but to be fair, I have never met a person who believed they were affected by advertising anyway.
Nobody you ask will admit that advertisers are smarter than they are, using time tested tecniques for manipulating the human emotional mind.
Advertising/marketing is just a big waste of money right? I really don't know why they bother ;o)

*edit*
In response to Schrodingers dog, I put forward that the free market will do what it needs to do to make a profit - and that's a pretty wide brush to paint with.

[edit on 3-2-2010 by trouble_every_day]

Originally posted by Aeons
Stop here. This should warn you of bias.

When they live in a step-family, they still live with both genders generally.

Half of those children live with their biological or original guardian parents.

The Canadian Encyclopedia in an article about Marriage and Divorce states that 1/4 families with children are headed by one parent. That's 25% not "most."

(Statistics in Western First World nations are all rough similar to each other)

Originally posted by factbeforefiction
This is sick for sure, but to say it is the 'Parents' fault is wrong... This is the 'Mothers' fault.

Do not blame this on Fathers, most Fathers do not have custody of their children. [edit on 3-2-2010 by factbeforefiction]

[edit on 2010/2/3 by Aeons]

It says "Most Fathers do not have custody." - that is the point - so go back to your encyclopedia and look up how many of those single parent families is headed by a 'Mother'. Mother being the trashy low life slut that purchases this crap and provides the market for it. Fathers do not purchase this crap and advertisers do not attempt to advertise this crap to Fathers. It's 100% square being sold to and bought by low life whore Mothers.

I gave you stats and you give out aggressive emotive mysogyny.

I understand that you think this is an excellent replacement for thought.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
That is a very interesting and valid line of reasoning to pursue.

Does the free market corrode moral character?

No it's not the free market that corrodes moral character, is lack of parenting a necessity of a successful free maket?

and by the way, we don't have a free market right now, in fact women wearing skimpy clothing and such and disney discretely putting nude pictures in animated movies only started once govt. interventionism started in full thrust

Actually the more I think about this, pedophiles would not really be attracted to this type of modeling. They like innocent children not wannabe whores.

reply to post by trouble_every_day


You are correct, if you were to ask anybody how much they are influenced by advertising or other marketing efforts an educated and introspective person may say 'a little', but the average person will say they are not.

But the reality is that advertising and marketing efforts are not based on what people say, but rather what people do. It is a science based on behavior, and behavior shows that they are in fact influenced, and in this case the target of the influence is the trashy woman who has the economic power to purchase this crap for her daughter.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Have to agree with everyone against this. But on the other hand America has been procising garbage like this since the 60's. It's terrible that our children are dressing like prostitutes then the media is wondering why pedophiles and rapist kidnap and murder children. As well children will grown always worrying about their appearances then their futures.

Yep. And girls like nice clothes and ask their parents for them.

Its AMAZING.

Originally posted by factbeforefiction
reply to post by trouble_every_day

 

But the reality is that advertising and marketing efforts are not based on what people say, but rather what people do. It is a science based on behavior, and behavior shows that they are in fact influenced, and in this case the target of the influence is the trashy woman who has the economic power to purchase this crap for her daughter.

Originally posted by Aeons
I gave you stats and you give out aggressive emotive mysogyny.

I understand that you think this is an excellent replacement for thought.

If you want to claim you are giving out stats then find the stat on how many of the single parent households are headed by a Mother? You won't because you know what I say is common knowledge and it would prove my point.

As for being anti-woman that's absolutely ridicules, I love women. My argument was squarely directed at women who are low class trashy whores. Now if you want to paint all women as that, than you are the one being misogynistic, I very clearly stated the qualifications for the women that I am speaking about.

So, I did the unthinkable (apologies if this was brought up already and I missed it) and visited the Ooh! La! La! website to see what this "lingerie" line really was.

Has anyone found anything other than the celebrity-watcher blog used as a "source" for this thread that calls it a "lingerie" line? Because:

1) their press release does not describe a lingerie line. It describes a line of clothing. The dresses have this "tutu" look which for some reason seems to imply "lingerie" to many here, but the five images provided of Emily Grace dresses from 2010 collection are all little girls' dresses (just above the knee, fitted but not suggestive tops) in bold, edgy colors.

I don't like them personally, but maybe when I was nine I would have.

The pictures from the link in the OP are mostly of Noah Cyrus and Emily Grace Reaves in their life as celebrities -- at Halloween parties. Not of this line of clothing at all.

I think there's something very disturbing about parents who will let their 8 and 9 year old girls be photographed draped around a pole for public consumption. But that would be another story altogether, and not Breaking News

reply to post by trouble_every_day

My concern here isn't that pedophiles might be attracted to this but that 9 year old boys and nine year old girls will eventually become part of the sexual tapestry (within their peer groups) - and it will become accepted and normal - one day - there is no time limit, just "progress".
Text

This is a valid concern!

I was entirely against all the OMG pedophile rhetoric, but if 9 year old boys see more skin on 9 year old girls, and 9 year old girls look and act more like adult girls, it will probably lead to more 9 year old sex! That is a problem, and anyone who wants to argue against these clothes from that perspective has my vote!

reply to post by ModernAcademia


The website I linked explores the question, including dissenting opinion ...

The purpose of linking it was to explore the question, which imho is an interesting one, and not to indicate personal agreement with the premise.

Actually, this is tame compared to the past.

Don't forget how 10 year old Brook Shields was put out as a sex symbol by her mother back in the seventies, and then they made a movie with Brook posing nude at the age of 12, where she is sold to the highest bidder at a brothel.

www.youngactressreviews.org...

What mothers put their daughters through in these child beauty pageants is more disgusting.

If anything, this is pretty tame.

Using the term lingerie is however very weird.

I imagine the company is paying them a boatload of money. They are the whacked out ones.