.
Feedback

‘Adult’ Styles for Your Little Girl—Too Much, Too Soon?

Popular clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch is involved in controversy again for a "push up" style bikini top marketed for girls as young as 7.

“American lifestyle” clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch angered parents again last week with a two-piece swimsuit for girls that the popular chain was pushing as “push up.” Sold through its Abercrombie Kids brand, the company was marketing the bikini top as the “Ashley Push Up Triangle” for girls as young as 7.

Facing an onslaught of complaints from outraged moms and dads, according to media reports, including a Chicago Sun-Times story, Abercrombie & Fitch announced Monday on its Facebook page that it had re-categorized the swimsuit as padded, saying: “We agree with those who say it is best ‘suited’ for girls age 12 and older.”

This isn’t a first offence for the retailer. In 2002, the company was sharply criticized for a line of thong underwear sold in children’s sizes featuring the words “wink wink” and “eye candy” printed on them.

In response to the controversy, the company said the underwear was intended to be cute and, basically, if you misinterpreted the messages, that was your problem. CNNMoney reported: “The underwear for young girls was created with the intent to be lighthearted and cute,” the company said. “Any misrepresentation of that is purely in the eye of the beholder.”

Push-up tops? An inappropriate style of panty combined with inappropriate messages? Google “eye candy” to clear up any doubt. These clothes were intended for grade-school age girls—your first-grader, for example.

Reading about this controversy, I was ticked off—and tempted to make this week’s Moms Talk question, “What part of any of this is OK?” because, in my opinion, none of it is OK. Push-up tops and thong underwear should not exist for little girls. They should not be an option.

But I was also reminded of an exchange I witnessed between a mother and daughter in the “intimates” section of Target, and the graceful way this uncomfortable situation was handled in real life.

The daughter, who looked to be a tween, approached her mom with a racy, lacy thong in hand. They’d come to buy new underwear and this was her choice.

“No, those are for ladies,” the mom said. The girl protested. But so-and-so has a pair, and you said I could pick, and so on.

“Those are for when you’re older,” the mom said. “I know you want something pretty. Let’s go see what else there is.”

The battle over the clothing kids want versus the clothing parents want for them may be ageless. With fashions for adults being miniaturized and marketed to children, it’s a battle that seems to be getting harder to fight. And these examples of sexualized apparel are troubling.

Every week on Moms Talk we pose a new parenting question and invite your comments. Moms Talk isn't just for moms, though, it's also a place for dads, grandparents and the diverse families who make up our community.

Let's get this week's conversation started with two local moms and a dad.

Mark: Age 7?  Really?  My first response is absolutely not!  As a father, I try very hard to instill a strong sense of self respect in both my children.  Part and parcel to self respect lies the question of who is validating our kids and their choices?  Is it their peers?  Their parents?  God?  No doubt, all will have some kind of influence but when it comes to children, as parents we need to be the front.  We have an opportunity to guide and teach, to shape and mold our kids into respectful, strong minded individuals with the ability to make choices that reflect their own self worth and awareness.  Often we can achieve that by simply saying “I love you enough to say, 'No'.”  But again, age 7? Really!?  At that age, my daughter wears what I or her mother buys for her.  Which means if she’s walking around in a padded bikini and a thong, it’s because we bought it for her.  Not happening.   I love my daughter to much for that.

Deb: I see absolutely no reason for young girls as young as seven to shop for, or wear, push-up tops or thong underwear. To me, this is a marketing strategy that aims to appeal to a woman's insecurities -- either to the mom's belief that her daughter has to "look a certain way," or to the little girl's need to fit in with her friends and images of how a woman "should look" as perpetuated by images she sees on television, movies, and in magazines.

I consider this marketing ploy to be completely reckless and irresponsible. Stores like Abercrombie, which young girls and teens perceive as representing the gold standard of what is acceptable to wear, are propagating the perception among impressionable customers that breasts must be bigger and bodies must be sexier in order to be accepted and cool.

Stores that sell and advertise this kind of apparel are purposely creating a need for it by playing to their customers' senses of inadequacy. That the message is being aimed at the under-18 demographic is careless at best, and dangerous at worst. We have enough issues with poor self esteem and body image in this country than to play to those insecurities just to sell bathing suits and underwear.

And finally, who are the girls trying to look sexier to by buying this apparel? Certainly not to each other. Selling these items to such a young customer makes it seem "normal" that a seven-year-old would think about looking sexy.

Suzanne: At Christmas one year, another grandmother and I stood, looking at a packaged doll, generally with push-up top, tacky clothing and probably thong underwear.  Would we buy that for our precious grandchildren?  To quote the other grannie: “I will not have my granddaughter looking like some ‘hoochie mama!’ ”  ‘Nuff said.  Needless to say, it is NOT the children who have the money and decision-making power that buy such garb. C’mon parents, grow-up.  Your kids idolize you and your choices – they are little versions of you – is that version going to be sluts and pimps or will it be preppy shoes, skirts, slacks or shorts and sweat shirt with a college logo?

If you are interested in becoming part of the Moms Council and helping to moderate this forum, please contact your local Patch editor. Email Eric Yates, Mount Helix Patch editor, at eric.yates@patch.com, or Christine Huard, Lemon Grove Patch editor, at christine.huard@patch.com, or Hoa Quach, Poway Patch editor, at hoa.quach@patch.com

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Poway Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Status Quo March 30, 2013 at 08:26 pm
Ken' "since most of the pro-active sports organizations (ASA (softball), AYSO, and LittleRead More League) have been doing it for years." "The only thing is that it won't stop those that have not been caught yet." Right up front, this is not attack of your insider view... however you make excellent case of the dubious nature of Mr. Maienschein's efforts. The organization you umpire, is already pro-active(if no perpetrators have been present within the org.) and legislation is an interference. Although the Assemblyman shares my Party affiliation as Republican, his legislation is a Progressive trojan-horse adding a layer of expansive over-governance. Ken, will his legislation improve the efficacy of background checks? Will it force lesser pro-active or ill-financed organizations to fold? Although I align myself with Scott Nelson's bottom line and sentiments, quite reticent to believe "local governments/state governments are willing to provide and pay for" anything themselves. For it is you and me, not legislators or governance that pays for programs such as these. I have found Government, highly inefficient and bad stewards of the interests of our children. In the interest of efficiency, I am quite confident in order to coach his daughter's soccer team he has passed his background check... and quite willing under my added mandate, to allow his check to suffice for legislative service as compliant.
Ken Mosley March 30, 2013 at 04:03 pm
Being an umpire of youth sports for nearly 40 years, I am all in favor of this, since most of theRead More pro-active sports organizations (ASA (softball), AYSO, and Little League) have been doing it for years. I am charged a fee by the organizations that I choose to officiate to cover the costs of this background check. I support knowing that the service that help to provide will not be tainted by those who have already been found to mis-behave with children. The only thing is that it won't stop those that have not been caught yet. It is a sad state of affairs that we have to do this, but it's because it's for our kids that we must.
Scott Nelson March 30, 2013 at 10:42 am
Having run a youth basketball league with close to 1,000 kids for 3 years, I can tell you that whileRead More the idea has some merit, the costs and time associated with it are enormous. If the local governments/state governments are willing to provide and pay for the mechanism to do this- great. If not, should be the responsibility of the parents to not just drop their kids and leave them for hours at a time, but actually perhaps stay for practices or heaven forbid actually help and participate to insure that everything is fine in THEIR children's environment.....A little personal responsibility for their own kids would be a new concept to a lot of parents...
Kathy April 19, 2013 at 02:40 pm
Well Colleen O'Connor, I have a daughter in the California system, and am appalled at yourRead More statements...Are you that blind. Did you write that and smile, patting yourself on the back at how 'stand up' and 'righteous' you are. Yes, instead of just going to visit, why don't you try spending a week, a month, more in the system...you think walking thru will give you an idea about how the treatment is. You won't even see the truth, even going for a surprise visit. I too do not condone the crimes, but you in your judgemental mindset have no idea. Yes, they made bad choices, but it does not make them all bad people, I agree the promotions to DA's should be more on the rehabilitation rate, rather than the number they interject into the system. Sad, your article is so sad. Think of the families of the incarcerated and how your comments can affect them as well as tjhe incarcerated, who already have their own guilt to bear, their own hurt, you have no idea how hard it is to be away from family, every movement controlled, missing births, deaths, children growing up. You don't think so many of them are sick at the situation they got themselves into? Do you not even have compassion as a person. You never expect it to happen to your loved one, my daughter was a working soccer mom, a devoted wife & mother, a loving person with a huge heart. Not everyone is evil or bad, they just made a bad choice. I agree, is the Gov. above the law cause he has a title??? Think about it.
aprillacy32@yahoo.com April 19, 2013 at 02:23 pm
Mike you are spot on this is what I have been saying and trying to get them listen CDCR, my teacherRead More and I were just discussing how lifers are the only inmates offered rehabilitation which makes no sense at all to me when a man serving 5 or 10 who will be getting out does not receive rehabilitation this is a cycle that is repeating it's self and there are so many family's kid's who need there parent's this has a far greater impact on our community in so many way's and different level's that we have to find a solution
mike April 19, 2013 at 03:02 am
The prison industry complex is one of the fastest-growing industries in the United States and itsRead More investors are on Wall Street. “This multi-million-dollar industry has its own trade exhibitions, conventions, websites, and mail-order/Internet catalogs. It also has direct advertising campaigns, architecture companies, construction companies, investment houses on Wall Street, plumbing supply companies, food supply companies, armed security, and padded cells in a large variety of colors.”. This country is in a state of lock em up and forget, until it hits your family or friends. I'm am in no way condoning the crime some ding dongs commit, but sentencing in California is out of control. Its called "union". Its called Big Green (Calif Dept of Corrections). Many can become productive members of society, many cant. We need a way to sort them out. District Attorneys build their brownie points and promotions on convictions, maybe promotions should be built on rehabilitation and success rather than penalty, Things that make you go Hmmmm!
Frank H. Robles April 11, 2013 at 12:07 pm
She will run.... but not get the Nomination....!!!
Gail April 10, 2013 at 02:52 pm
Yup! I agree with it all.