Is this really sexualising young girls or is it US not letting them wear what they want?

[Adair]

I don't quite know what to make of the Mumsnet campaign.

On the one hand, I agree that padded bras are inappropriate. And 'future WAG' type slogans. Very against all the objectification.

But I am not convinced that short shorts/tight t-shirts/ugg boots are 'sexual'. ~And have seen worrying assertions on here that kids shouldn't dress like that because they are sending out a message to paedophiles. This seems very, very wrong to me - sort of 'asking for it' arguments. Are paedophiles really more prevalent because of the rise in 5 year olds dressing 'like adults'? Surely if you see a 7 year old girl in high heels and consider her a sex object then that's a problem full-stop?

Does anyone get what I am driving at?

no there is nothing natural in dressing a small girl in heels unless it's for dress-up - same goes for make up and stupid padded bikinis

I haven't seen the campaign but have responded on the thread and would hazard a guess it's not about paedophiles but about what it says to the child themselves: wearing heels is the right thing to do if you're a girl, wearing provocative / sexualised clothing the same

kids should be kids

I agree with activate- it's not about paedophiles, but the wider perception. Paedophiles exploit vulnerable children regardless of their clothing, although I'm sure some will justify the abuse retrospectively in those terms.

which thread? I wasn't meaning to reference one particular thread, just the campaign.

I agree with what you say entirely, and actually you have clarified it to me why I am conflicted - cos I do think it is wrong.

The Sun's headline about the padded bikini was PAEDO BIKINI so I guess some people DO think it is about them paedophiles.

I don't think it is necessarily about paedophiles' perception of a child and how they might dress, it is about conditioning children to behave in a sexual way and to express themselves as individuals purely from an appearance point of view. A child is a child is a child....why encourage adult views of what is attractive/acceptable/desirable?

Agree, scurryfunge. I hope everyone views it that way.

Young children should not be overly concerned with looking fashionable or wearing sexy clothes. I see the point of the campaign as one that encourages children to stay young and innocent and unaware of grown up pressure for as long as possible.
I would extend the campaign to boys too actually, what with the moronic skulls and violent images that are thrust at them as much as pink is for girls

A lot of the clothes being complained about just arent very practical. Plus a lot of kids really don't want to wear them which makes shopping even more painful.

No idea why anyone would complain about ugg-type boots though; very unsexy and fairly practical.

A lot of the emphasis is on how these clothes make the children perceive themselves rather than how others look at them.

I think it is very positive. Lines have to be drawn as commerce often overtakes common sense.

As for the WAG comments, I notice there are pictures in the Mail today of Alex Gerrard with her girls. They are dressed in lovely, pretty dresses with sandals, socks etc. I know that the OP didn't seek to critisise WAGs but just thought I'd point it out.

No, I get it!!

I was slightly worried seeing the Sun headline today etc that it was a hysterical, ill-thought out reactionary campaign.

Tbh I should have trusted MN.I totally agree and understand that it is about how children perceive themselves. Campaign good.

I also agree about boys clothes (Camouflage/little monsters etc). I suppose that's why I kind of bristle at 'sexualising young girls'... haven't quite worked it out yet.

I think the problem was that aspiring to be a 'future WAG' wasn't very er... lofty. Not that there is anything wrong with actually being a WAG.

PS someone mentioned on the Asda thread, a t-shirt 'I'm going to get a Nobel Prize for Science'. I would LOVE to get that t-shirt for dd. Particularly if it was pink and glittery. With a rainbow on it.

I know what you mean about the WAG thing. I just thought, you know, if I were one (which I am very much not) I'd be a pissed off with any association to these awful clothes.

Oh yes, I think if I was one, I'd be pissed off with the whole 'WAG' thing in general. I get the feeling Alex Gerrard goes overboard to show she is not a stereotypical WAG.

The Sun have used the objections to the over-sexualisation of girls, to promote their own mysogynist agenda, which is that on the whole, rape is basically OK.

By screaming out that the bikinis encourage "paedos", they're re-inforcing the idea that if a female of any age gets raped, she has contributed to that attack by the clothes she wears. All the time, pretending to be outraged by the clothes because they know that many of their readers are, for the commonsense reasons that most people are, which are nothing to do with paedos.

I think the campaign is in danger of becoming about taste rather than sexualisation TBH.

There is and always has been a fashionable element to children's clothes. Even Boden.

Leggings, Ugg boots etc are fashionable items, but allow children freedom of movement in the same way as dungarees do.

Slogan t-shirts per se are not sexualising children, even though they may not be to everyone's taste- I think we have to be really careful that the campaign does not stray into 'classist' territory; the t-shirt on the Asda thread is already being described as 'chavvy'

I also think Adair raises a very good point about the tinge of 'asking for it' about the campaign. I think it's important to remember that children have no sexuality, and not to project sexualised messages onto them; in other words, a tight t-shirt on an adult is sexy, but on a child is not, and should not be treated as such. We have to be careful not to replace one inappropriate childhood concern for another- do we really want children to be concerned about how 'provocatively' they are dressing? We have to be careful not to make them think they are responsible in any way for the actions of paedophiles.

It's a fine balance.

I am suddenly remined about 'Hot Pants' back in the 70's. I had already made the 'shorts with a bib top' variant for my DDs as a summer version of their winter dungarees, when suddenly every 'big busted blonde' was posing in them - without a T shirt underneath .

A case of reverse sexualisation of children's clothes, like the 'saucy schoolgirl' look.

imo there's nothing wrong with ugg-style boots, the thing that is wrong is a 7yr old who believes that she HAS to have those exact boots like the celeb in the magazine otherwise she'll be laughed at by all her friends and less of a desirable person.

that's the problem with children's fashions following adult fashion.

tethersend - "Slogan t-shirts per se are not sexualising children" - I agree it depends on the slogan of course.

But a "Future WAG" slogan is deeply deeply sexist - because it is referring to someone being ascribed a status based on their man rather than them.

I have linked to this a few times now but some of you may be interested in the Sexualisation of Young People report.

I had a rant about the Sun at 9.30 am this morning.

How DARE they complain about Primark selling padded bikinis for seven year olds when they paraded Samantha Fox's teenaged breasts to the world before she was even old enough to sign the fucking contract?

her parents 'gave their consent' - basically, they put their sixteen year old daughter for sale to the highest bidder, and that bidder was page 3.

Women and children are still treated as property. On what planet should SOMEONE ELSE be able to consent to a 16 year old girl getting her breasts out in a national newspaper? She wasn't old enough to drink alcohol, or drive a car, but she was considered old enough to engage in pornographic activities as long as some signed the contract for her by proxy.