Designer Slammed For Using 10 -Year- Old Girl To Model Skimpy Bikini

[Liberté]

ShimmaPuff I totally agree with you! There is nothing wrong with this photo! Children below her age even run naked around the beach (at least here they do), for EVERYONE TO SEE!

Quote:

The fact that she feels that she is somehow doing wrong to look at a picture of a little girl in a bathing suit does not tell us anything about her, nor does it change the fact that there is nothing whatsoever sexual about a little girl in a bathing suit, but it does tell us something about the society, the culture, in which she lives.

[Aslan]

Originally Posted by Liberté

There is nothing wrong with this photo! Children below her age even run naked around the beach (at least here they do), for EVERYONE TO SEE!

It's not about nudity, which isn't sexual at all in itself, nor in many societal contexts (as you've pointed out). If this girl were nude, it wouldn't be offensive. The fact is that she is wearing a sexualized object.

[rubylola]

Originally Posted by Liberté

ShimmaPuff I totally agree with you! There is nothing wrong with this photo! Children below her age even run naked around the beach (at least here they do), for EVERYONE TO SEE!

there is nothing wrong with a child in a child's bathing suit/bikini- but this is an adult's bikini and is therefore not fitting attire for a child.

Recently one of the big supermarkets in the UK tried to sell a little girls toy pole dancing kit, and another- padded bra tops and thongs with the slogan 'sexy' for 3 year olds. These are not age appropriate, and the reason mothers reacted so angrily and demanded the withdrawal of such inappropriate toys/ clothing was not because they are seeing their kids as sexualized, but because they are determined that their kids will not be viewed as sexual by being linked with something that does have sexual properties (ie- pole dancing, padded bra, or tiny adult bikini in a catwalk show).

It is not the person who reacts against this who is sexualising children, it is the one who is creating such toys, garments. It is not the whole of society who sexualises children, it is one section of it, while the other is fighting against it. The designer, if not out and out sexualising children, is sending out a very strange message- why hasn't she sent out an adult in this garment? It is clearly a publicity stunt. (And it has worked, because here we are discussing it).

When i was only slightly younger than 10, i played on the beach in kid's bikini bottoms and no top, and there is nothing wrong with that, but a 10 year old in a skimpy adult bikini in an adult catwalk show is inappropriate.

(and it adds a whole other dimension to the size zero debate, but that is another thread!)

[bravorodrig]

That's disgusting. She can be a child model all she wants. At that age she doesn't need to feel the pressure to be sex object....To those who see nothing wrong, let me ask you this: would you have YOUR daughter "dressed" like that IN A FASHION SHOW?? Common sense has vanished...

[ShimmaPuff]

Originally Posted by bchleo

...By putting that little girl in an sexualized object (skimpy bikini), we are sexualizing her. It doesn't matter that the bikini is not essentially sexual. Pragmatically speaking, it doesn't matter that the bikini is not essentially sexual, if society as a whole views it as a sexual object.

That is my point. It is not the photographer, or the little girl, or her parents, who are sexualizing her.

It is the larger society, the beholders, who have made the choice to sexualize the concept of the little girl in a bathing suit, and as some have indicated, to sexualize the bathing suit itself!

A bikini cannot really "be sexy" unless it is "filled out" by an adult body, which the little girl doesn't have.

Now I think that you could make the argument that the people who did the photo did so knowing that they would be showing it to people who had chosen to adopt the sexualization of children as a social norm, and therefore raising the question of deliberately exploiting a particularly distasteful societal dysfunction for monetary gain.

However, once we start down that road, we are going to quickly find ourselves - with the pedophiles - back at that Wal-Mart ad for kids' playwear, and the question of why the society has made this choice, and how we could work toward changing that so that kids can have a childhood unencumbered by such an inappropriate load of adult baggage remains the road not taken...

[anufangava]

Its too skimpy. Unfortunately, this designer do not have any qualms about taking advantage of a 10 year old girl.

[Aslan]

Originally Posted by ShimmaPuff

That is my point. It is not the photographer, or the little girl, or her parents, who are sexualizing her. It is the larger society, the beholders, who have made the choice to sexualize the concept of the little girl in a bathing suit, and as some have indicated, to sexualize the bathing suit itself!

No, the suit is a sexual object in society. Very few people sexualize a little girl in a bathing suit. She is just made to carry the burden of association by wearing it. A burden she shouldn't have to carry. It's contrary to her nature.

Originally Posted by ShimmaPuff

A bikini cannot really "be sexy" unless it is "filled out" by an adult body, which the little girl doesn't have.

Well, technically yes. But many such things, like thongs, are viewed as sexual objects despite who's wearing them. I think that conception of a sexual object can form without being visualized with or attached to a body.

Originally Posted by ShimmaPuff

Now I think that you could make the argument that the people who did the photo did so knowing that they would be showing it to people who had chosen to adopt the sexualization of children as a social norm, and therefore raising the question of deliberately exploiting a particularly distasteful societal dysfunction for monetary gain.

I'm not. I think that argument is rather lame. There are relatively few true pedophiles.

[ShimmaPuff]

Originally Posted by bchleo

No, the suit is a sexual object in society.

If the suit itself is a sexual object in society, and I am not saying it is not, I am saying that it is a choice made by society. A bathing suit is not in and of itself a sexual object. A bikini may be considered "sexy" only as a garment that highlights those aspects of the adult female form that DO naturally have a relation to sexual desire.

Originally Posted by bchleo

Very few people sexualize a little girl in a bathing suit. She is just made to carry the burden of association by wearing it. A burden she shouldn't have to carry. It's contrary to her nature.body.

In the US, our culture, our society, does sexualize a little girl in a bathing suit. That is why so many people feel so strongly about the picture. One person even said she felt she was doing wrong by looking at it! That is not because she is doing anything wrong, nor is the picture really sexual in any way. But the culture has decided to consider that it is, and THAT is, in my opinion, the problem. THAT is what gives the little girl that burden she shouldn't have to carry.

And I agree, it is contrary to her nature, and it is contrary to our own.

Originally Posted by bchleo

I'm not. I think that argument is rather lame. There are relatively few true pedophiles.

LOL I am not talking about pedophiles, I am talking about the society, the culture as a whole. If one does choose to argue that the producers of the photo are engaging in exploitation, it is not pedophiles, or any aspect of that illness, that is being exploited. It is the larger society, and the decision that society has made to put that burden on children, which is the reason that there is any controversy, any discussion about it, here or elsewhere!

This is why that argument will always return to that ad for playwear, it is as if the society has essentially decided that the way pedophiles view children is normal, which, of course, it is not. It is contrary to our nature. To view children in that way is an illness, one that, as you correctly point out, is thankfully rare.

[Aslan]

Originally Posted by ShimmaPuff

If the suit itself is a sexual object in society, and I am not saying it is not, I am saying that it is a choice made by society. A bathing suit is not in and of itself a sexual object.

I see we are kind of going in circles here. Yes it is a choice made by society to designate the bikini as a sexual object, but every appellation in society is. My point is, to say that, in effect, means nothing.

You say that we are sexualizing the little girl in the bathing suit. Sure, we are, because something that we note as a sexual object is currently adorning her. That little model is no longer sexualized without the sexualized object. Now one can go in circles over whether we should ascribe properties to objects, but I feel that objection goes nowhere. It is a part of human nature; it is how we cope with the world.

[SonyaPhi]

I think that the photo is inappropriate because it is not in their family photo album it's on the internet. If pedophiles enjoy looking at Wal-Mart children's playwear advertisements for their sick gratification then this photo is like borderline porn for them it is wrong to put a child out baring so much skin. I am mostly upset because that bottom is so small!!! What the hell, there's really no need for it to be that small. I am a mother and I would NEVER allow my child to wear something so small out in public because of the possibilty of sickos getting their jollies! Nowadays you just NEVER know who the sickos are.

[ShimmaPuff]

Originally Posted by bchleo

...Yes it is a choice made by society to designate the bikini as a sexual object, but every appellation in society is. My point is, to say that, in effect, means nothing.

That may be where we disagree. To me, the fact that we sexualize swimwear is wacky but essentially harmless. The fact that we sexualize children does cause harm.

Originally Posted by bchleo

You say that we are sexualizing the little girl in the bathing suit. Sure, we are, because something that we note as a sexual object is currently adorning her. That little model is no longer sexualized without the sexualized object.

In my opinion, she is. That is why if she falls from her bicycle we will ask her from a safe distance if she is OK, and where is her mom, but we will not run to her and pick her up in our arms. That is why, if she is a student in our class at school, we will comfort or congratulate her verbally, but we will not hug her.

And that is why, if we see a picture of her wearing a "skimpy" bathing suit, pages and pages of discussion will ensue!

I don't know if you are old enough to remember it, but a few decades ago, a popular manufaturer of "suntan lotion" had as its signature visual the image of a little girl wearing either a bikini or maybe she had no top on at all, I don't remember. But in the image a puppy had pulled down the bottom of her suit, holding it in his teeth, so that her butt, and a very visible "tan line" were exposed.

This was their ad, for years and years, but can you imagine such an ad today? On billboards, in popular famous name magazines?

It is not really about the bathing suit itself, it is about something you said before, about being contrary to nature. It is contrary to our nature to sexualize children as if we were pedophiles, and it is contrary to our nature to check those natural and instinctive urges to pick up, to hug, to care for the young of our species.

It is, in my opinion, a very dangerous societal norm we have made, a very ominous cultural trait we have forged - we are playing with the instinct of species preservation itself! Because that is what those urges to comfort and care for our young are part of!

[dokturshoo]

oH MY GOodNesS?

[dokturshoo]

oH MY GOodNesS?

[guccimamma]

i wouldn't allow my daughter to wear that, bikinis are fine...that crosses a line for a very young girl.

a girl of that age is not able to handle the type of attention that it may cause. so for that reason, i feel it is inappropriate.

[HauteMama]

How about the fact that a bikini isn't at all appropriate for a little girl to wear anyway? It isn't practical, as little children run and jump and twist and play, and with nothing to hold a two piece suit in place, it must be constantly adjusted. Why even bother?

A bikini isn't worn for practical reasons; it is worn as a fashion statement. I just wish girls so young were not used or sucked into the fashion aspect of things and were allowed to be children in comfortable, practical swimsuits.