Or this an over-sexualised image advertising a girls top in the 6+ range?

[SydneyB]

This
DD is taller than average at age 5 and wears 6/7 clothes sometimes 8 - I know the age group for this particular range includes teens but even so I just feel that this image is just a little too much. AIBU?

It's a bikini for babies though. Why do babies need to wear a bikini?

Fair enough Cabrinha - I am struggling slightly with finding clothes for DD on the high st as once you hit age 6/7 you seem to go into the young teen category.

yy to Kate Moss. It's a KM pose

I don't like the image

And I like the top but for 14+, not 16 year olds!

TBH went into M&S last week to get DD(7) something, it was shockingly trashy or shockingly badly made.

Under 7's stuff was lovely :(

Agree stetsons - pants'll do.

Well I'll throw it all on its head by saying I don't like the pose of the glitzy top photo at all, but I think the baby bikini is really cute.

I wouldnt put a younger child in the top but for a teenager there's nowt wrong with it, not revealing at all, just a nice sparkly top for when they go out.

I really don't see anything come hither about the photo though.

not 6 yo I meant! Fine for 16 year olds

if you dont like 'em, dont buy 'em

think it does look quite 'mature' the way her hand is up and shes all pouty. I'd expect it to be a top for 15 year olds not really 5 year olds.

True MateyMooo, true...

I dont know about sexualized. It reminds me a bit of those CK adverts when he was going for that heiron chic thing.

Actually, I dont think you are being totally UR. She is not putting it out there but there is a definate whiff of adult stuff going on.

IMO.

It's in the age 6+ age group so from 6 to I think, 14 - that's a fairly wide range and perhaps that's why it jarred for me. I'm looking for things for a 5 yr old and that pings up as you scroll down.

It's a horrible pose. I don't know if it is explicitly sexualising, but it certainly employs lots of cliches closely associated with sexualised poses. The eyes half closed, the head thrown slightly back to create the effect of slightly looking down on someone in a sultry way, the lips half open. Those are all standard in sexualised images.

What those cliches clearly aren't is anything to do with the girl herself. It is a replacement of her individuality with a set-piece fantasy, and that is damaging enough even if you deny that the fantasy is a sexual one (which on balance I think it is).

It is quite a sexual/adult pose, although not traditionally sexy. I don't know - I would say clothes for 5-14 year olds should be advertised by smiley, healthy, happy looking models. This is a bit of a moody Top Shop pose.

M&S just trying to remind people that not only Next do clothes up to age 16.
Given the girl in the photo is quite probably 14+ the pose is what you'd expect.
She probably wouldn't be caught dead out of her superset hoddy in RL

Auto correct obviously thinks the same as I do about over priced branded rubbish - superdry

It's not a 6yo doing the modelling.

have I lost the plot again as what Im supposed to be seeing? Other than a teenager with a mardy look on her face and a spectacularly gordy piece of clothing?

If I hadn't read the messages before looking at the pic, I would not have believed that it was a top that could be suitable for a 6 year old. Altho on looking at the size ranges, the sizes are from 5/6 to 16!

I'm not sure it's over-sexualised but she's obviously not 6yo and she's wearing more make-up than I do!

It looks quite provocative to me, hard pushed to say why! But she looks older.

OP, the top itself is tacky but not too bad

I take your point though about the sexual, come hither look on such a young girl

it makes me feel rather uncomfortable

worth an email to M+S, I think

I didn't think M+S would like to think they are seen as promoting the sexualisation of young girls, but I suppose I could be proved wrong

Why do M&S use pale background catalogue shots? They are always horrid!

I think the problem, to the extent that there is a problem, is that there is one range covering five-year-olds through to sixteen-year-olds.

Fundamentally, that's a teenage top being marketed to teenagers and I have no problem with the imagery. It just seems daft that they are trying to sell the exact same top to five-year-olds. "A contemporary casual collection in trend-conscious styles [...] Perfect for stylish girls who love looking fashionable." should probably have a narrower age focus.

I can't decide, it IS a bit pouty, but not overly so. Mind you it is available in age 5-6. This is where the problem lies isn't it? I expect to see a five year old smiling insanely in cheesy grin mode. But I think this is actually quite a cheery pose for a 13 year old.

Perhaps a grumpy pout & folded arms would span all the ages? Not the best marketing tool though.

Also, rank top & any 5 year old I know would have a jolly old time methodically pulling the sequins off.

X Post tmesis