AIBU to think a soap shop shouldn't be encouraging young girls to self harm?

[Elleexxtra]

Lush Paddington are giving out binders, meaning girls can self harm without any danger of their parents knowing and being able to discuss potential issues with them.

www.instagram.com/lushpaddington/

AIBU to think young girls shouldn't be groomed to hate their bodies?

Yeah I won't be shopping there again.

@UndertonesOfCake

It's better they have access to safer binders rather than resorting to DIY methods. These kids will find a way to bind one way or another.

Do you also object to teenagers being given access to condoms?

Condoms don't harm a growing body. You are implying that there is a "safe" way to bind. There isn't.

Ah, Lush, who never met a controversial charity they didn't like.

It's outrageously irresponsible and dangerous.

Knew it would be that vile stink shop
If I could boycott it I would but I don’t shop there anyway I hate the smell.

The sex education programme on Netflix also had a damaging story about binders, encouraging young girls to hate their bodies and making out it was a normal and brave thing to do.

The trans movement is so damaging for our children and their futures.

In view of comments about “safe binders”, there is no such thing, in fact commercial binders can be the most harmful despite the marketing.
I am beyond disgusted that supplying binders to allow vulnerable teenagers to self-harm is seen as remotely acceptable. Adolescence and bodily changes are so hard for teenage girls given the overt sexualisation of the female body, in particular autistic girls - who will no doubt form a significant % of Lush’s market for crushing their healthy breast tissue.
Studies show binders - esp commercial ones cause lung function abnormality, the long term effects of which are unknown. The mind numbing ignorance of those who, heads full of unicorns and rainbows, are imposing misery and damage on our children.
thorax.bmj.com/content/71/Suppl_3/A227.1

Let’s hope people up and down the country remember this when they’re out doing their Christmas shopping. I know I won’t be spending a penny in there now!

@FranceTeam

The sex education programme on Netflix also had a damaging story about binders, encouraging young girls to hate their bodies and making out it was a normal and brave thing to do.

The trans movement is so damaging for our children and their futures.

It’s the single most frightening thing for me as a parent. I’m honestly more worried about it than climate change. I just hope we’re over the peak of the current insanity by the time mine are teens. The lawsuits should be in full swing by then, from the thousands of children whose bodies and fertility were irreversibly damaged and hopefully the world will have woken up to this scandal.

Well Lush is definitely out for Christmas. I don't jump quickly on these things as I'd have nowhere to shop but this is abhorrent.

Condoms don't harm a growing body. You are implying that there is a "safe" way to bind. There isn't.

There is also no completely safe way to have sex. There is only safeR sex.

You will notice that I referred to safeR binding.

It is incredibly naive to think that teenagers won't have sex because condoms are unavailable. Likewise it is incredibly naive to think that lack of access to a binder will stop anyone who wants to from binding. They find alternative, less safe, ways - like bandages.

There'll be a reason why Lush did this, and I'll bet a pound to a pinch of shit it's either got something to do with gaining 'diversity champion' brownie points from one or other of those increasingly dubious schemes pushed by organisations like Stonewall or Mermaids, or someone in Lush's upper echelons is one some kind of personal crusade.

I'd hate to be the marketing team charged with delivering this truly derisible and highly questionable campaign - they're going to be kept VERY busy batting off the mountain of shit they'll get.

Imagine if TopShop gave out corsets to help girls achieve a 16” waist. Who cares about their bruised or broken ribs, their inability to breathe properly or the restriction of movement a corset causes?

This is a real safeguarding issue.

Apart from the fact there are many many studies showing the harm caused to a growing body by binding.(Not as if we need that, your torso is where you keep most of your important organs. Constricting it at a time of increased growth is a bit, well duh, of course it harms.

This is advocating a culture of secrecy around self harming and sex.
For arguments sake, let's assume that there is a safe way to bind(there isn't, but for devil's advocate).
By encouraging secret to be kept from those with parental responsibility it means no one would be able to monitor it to ensure it is done safely.

So even if lush thought binding was harmless and could be done safely, the more responsible way to advocate for it would be to set up trying on clinics with parental accompaniment to teach them to do it safely. This would obviously cost the company as they'd need trained medical professionals to do these consultations.
Except they won't find any professionals willing to do that because anyone with any medical background knows how bad this is.

Another one no longer shopping at Lush.

WTAF is wrong with them?

I disagree with Lush about a few things but because they’re (and quite rightly) cruelty free people think they’re sent from heaven.
They’re absolute idiots and so misguided.

@UndertonesOfCake

Condoms don't harm a growing body. You are implying that there is a "safe" way to bind. There isn't.

There is also no completely safe way to have sex. There is only safeR sex.

You will notice that I referred to safeR binding.

It is incredibly naive to think that teenagers won't have sex because condoms are unavailable. Likewise it is incredibly naive to think that lack of access to a binder will stop anyone who wants to from binding. They find alternative, less safe, ways - like bandages.

Soap peddlers aren't qualified for this shit so there's nothing safe about it.

It's a false equivalent, a meaningless comparison.

It is incredibly naive to think that teenagers won't have sex because condoms are unavailable. Likewise it is incredibly naive to think that lack of access to a binder will stop anyone who wants to from binding. They find alternative, less safe, ways - like bandages

Lush sent out women in white t shirts and made them allow men ro kiss them anywhere in order to sell lipstick.

Do you think they care about the girls they will be assisting to harm here?

Or trying to line their pockets by climbing up some ranking set by people who openly disregard safety privacy dignity and the law ?

And guess what. The get out clauses are written into any paperwork. When lush is sued, fir assisting self harm, you can bet any money that there will be zero repercussions on said agencies. This will all be on the.kimum wage untrained staff who signed up fir selling bath bombs and are now responsible for the physical and mental well being of children they know nothing about

Absolutely awful

But this doesn’t surprise me. Remember the body shop and their stunts to JKR? It’s the same vibe innit

A safeguarding nightmare. I honestly don’t know what they’re thinking.

They should stick to selling their overpriced migraine inducing soap.

This is about as reasonable as if they were handing out "weight loss" vomiting pills. Gotta be inclusive of them ana/mia folks!

Seriously, this is so fucked up. There is a massive overlap between teenagers who feel bad about their boobs, and eating disorders.

I read these threads and I remember being on here years ago when everyone was unquestioningly chanting “TWAW!” and wondering at what point the light would be seen. I always wonder if those who were expressing disgust at the “hate” and “transphobia” and ranting about how boring these threads were are shocked at just how far unquestioning support has brought us.

@UndertonesOfCake

Condoms don't harm a growing body. You are implying that there is a "safe" way to bind. There isn't.

There is also no completely safe way to have sex. There is only safeR sex.

You will notice that I referred to safeR binding.

It is incredibly naive to think that teenagers won't have sex because condoms are unavailable. Likewise it is incredibly naive to think that lack of access to a binder will stop anyone who wants to from binding. They find alternative, less safe, ways - like bandages.

Yes, condoms are demonstrably safer than unprotected sex at preventing pregnancy; 98%: www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/male-condoms/

Please can you point me to the latest study in a reputable medical journal comparing "safe" and "DIY" binding? Or a link to NHS advice on the technique? And what training do Lush staff have if a confused teen asks them about long-term health effects?

This is awful.

To those saying it's not harmful - yes, it is. Over 97% of respondents in a survey of 1,800 trans and non-binary females reported harm, ranging from difficulty breathing to fractured ribs.

It is NOT safe.

Cant believe that