To find these New Look school uniform adverts unacceptable?

[TheWildZebra]

Just that really - screen shot below.

mini skirts , cherries, twirling hair ?

am I a prude or are these just evidence of sexualisation of young women?

See I don't think or see "sex" in any of those things. I think you have to have a certain kind of perverted mind to think like that. If you really can't see kids being kids without thinking of sex, I'd suggest you seek counselling to minimise your chances of offending horribly, as you're a danger to children.

Ah yes women/mothers objecting to the sexualisation if children are obviously the perverted ones. 🙄

Yup.

Presumably the mothers who campaigned against Woolworth's "Lolita" line were equally perverted.

Link for those not old enough to know about this: https://www.retail-week.com/woolworths-withdraws-girls-lolita-bed/574191.article

You may not, but plenty of people will.

So why is New Look going there?

@mrsm43s why do you think New Look chose those particular poses and expressions for those models (who are modelling clothing for ages NINE and upwards?). Don't you wonder that school uniform might be more appropriately advertised with actual signifiers for learning or doing stuff.
The girls' expressions are just so damn passive and vacant, even if you can't see anything beyond that.

They are tacky and dated.

Honestly, since you're asking, I think that New Look are trying to appeal to a different demographic than say M&S. The imagery is more "too cool for school" rather than sexual, and cherries and bows are popular (non sexual) teen logos, designed to appeal to teens. Their advertising campaign is targeted at the "cool kids" and not at the sensible middle class mums. Like it or not, for many teens feeling their school uniform is a bit trendier rather than sensible will increase sales. There's nothing sexual in the imagery, it's that bored, disengaged "cool kid" image. Not something I'd aspire to for my children, true, but I'm more of a middle class M&S mum. That said, I think frothing about it and labelling it sexual (when it's not) is just plain wrong and points to some disordered associations between young children and sex.

Ah, it’s ok for the (working class demographic?) New Look mums to aspire to for their girls then.

Bored, disengaged, cool kid - use for normal clothes on 16+ kids. Leave 4-16 school clothes for children to be children.

Your opinion is that parents against the presentation of schoolchildren striking fashion model type poses in make up are frothing nonces? Hmm. Another wild one.

No, I'm saying that teens that aspire to the "cool girl" look will be drawn to these poses and the trendy images. They're not sexual images, and I find it hard to understand the mental wiring of people who look at those images and sexualize them in their heads. It's odd to look at those images and instantly have your mind go to sex with children and underage loss of virginity. Those thoughts, thankfully, didn't enter my head at all. I saw school girls in school uniform and imagery that is popular with the children and teens that the marketing people were trying to attract.

When I see a young child twiddling their hair, or having their mouth open, wearing a short shirt, or, God Forbid! a cherry logo, I don't think they're acting sexy or provocatively. I simply see a young child. Sex doesn't enter my mind.

Yes, again you’re saying that parents who dislike these images of children posing in make up for school are perverts who “think about sex with children”.

Your interpretation of why people who care about the wellbeing of children don’t like how children are represented is concerning.

I find it odd when people look at those images and see 'sexy'. I simply don't see 'sexy', I see 'child'.

They don't see "sexy". They see a child being posed in a certain way.

When Woolworth's had to delete their "Lolita" product, their defence was that they were unaware of the connotations. Nevertheless, the product name was inappropriate.

It's not the middle aged mums you need to worry about here. Their intentions are going to be protective.

However other cohorts will see this iconography and see 'sex'. That's the problem.

I'm afraid @mrsm43s it's about having your antenna twitching so that you can be one step ahead of the pervs who definitely will see the Lolita type imagery.

That’s like saying hentai it’s not about sex/sexy because it’s just cartoons(“funnily” enough a lot of them involving schoolgirls).

Are you saying Child Sexual Abuse is caused by the way a child dresses or poses, or by the presence of a cherry or bow image?

Much like some people think wearing a short skirt or low cut top is the cause of someone being raped?

I don't agree with this. I think abusers are abusers, rapists are rapists and paedophiles are paedophiles.

Rapists cause rape. Abusers cause abuse. Paedophiles cause CSA. Clothing styles, cute logos, facial expressions aren't the cause.

Obviously there's ways of children dressing which would be inappropriate. But these images aren't that. They are images of kids in school uniform, looking like most school kids do, with fashionable logos of cherries and bows.

"Lolita" is only a name. Should Woolworth's have retained it as part of the branding for their product?

I'm saying that New Look shouldn't be encouraging these thoughts or playing into the hands of people who would fantasise about this. Not a very difficult thought to process, right?

Of course not. It’s never in any way the victim’s
fault.
But we shouldn’t be depicting schoolgirls like this. It’s simply wrong. We want strong girls who can think and act for themselves and not be seen through the lens of any weird male fantasy trope. And it’s the job of adults to do that. It matters not a jot whether some girls dress themselves like that; it’s up to adults to provide a better roadmap for girls as young as 9, and not to play to any weird fantasy some men might have.

I don't think they are though. This isn't a sexually charged image. It's a picture of school kids looking like school kids and some cute innocent logos.

If people look at this image and think these children look sexy, then they would think children are sexy whatever they are wearing. Changing the cherry to an apple, tying the hair up, and making the skirt longer won't stop a paedophile finding children sexually appealing.

I think you're being naive.

But you do you, I'm not here to change you mind, I just disagree.

Cherries and bows are on loads of clothes, phone cases etc so the people suggesting it’s a reference to ‘popping the cherry’ are the ones you should be wary off.

Oh, another one suggesting those who don’t think the imagery is good for school kids are perverts. Hmm.

fwiw the cherries are the least of it in my eyes but cartoon phone emojis slapped on enhance the tackiness. Popping your cherry is an outdated reference but it’s not like it’s Chaucer or something, people were saying it commonly 20 years ago.

When it comes to marketing school uniform common sense would be a guideline of would you be comfortable with your child’s RE/sports/whatever teacher styling, directing and taking those photos of your child.