<strong>If a 10 year old is wearing thongs it's because their parent(s) bought it & think it's OK.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Amen. And when if comes down to it, as long as you aren't doing things with 10 year olds that you shouldn't, no one will even see the thongs besides the girl when she puts it on, and her parents when they do the laundry. How can someone be offended by something they can't even see?!
Hey, I've known a couple of whores. Don't know any prostitues though.
Anyway, from the article:
"Abercrombie and Fitch is selling clothes to make children sexually stimulating to adults," said Brian Camenker of the Parents' Rights Coalition.
Now I may be a tad bit slow here... but if an adult is in a position to see a 10 year old gir's frickin underwear, I think that adult had already found something sexually stimulating about that girl...
" -- selling thong underwear with sexually charged phrases for children. The skimpy undies have the words "eye candy'' and "wink wink'' printed on the front."
What(who!)are these messages for? A ten year old girl's boyfriend? Nope, this is pure stupidity on A&F's part. Pure stupidity.
" -- selling thong underwear with sexually charged phrases for children. The skimpy undies have the words "eye candy'' and "wink wink'' printed on the front."
What(who!)are these messages for? A ten year old girl's boyfriend? Nope, this is pure stupidity on A&F's part. Pure stupidity. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. Those of you who think this is harmless had better wake the hell up. I am a teacher. I see 10 year old girls who dress like Brittany Spears, hell, I see 5 year olds that do! This stuff sends a message to younger girls that they should be sexy. The last thing a 10 year old girl should be is sexy. Our society is over-sexed. Did you know that leading theorists are saying that because of all the sexual inuendo on TV, in music, in ads, etc....that girls as young a NINE are getting their periods?
And its not really sex that is the problem. We all know that parts of Europe are much more free regarding sex. It is that in the US there is a hidden message that "sex is naughty and dirty".....and kids hear that message. Then, they are tempted to be sexy and try sex (perhaps just because they are told not to by authority).
It's a mixed problem really. Sex being considered "bad" on one hand and then, with that message in mind, it being pushed on little girls. (If that makes any sense at all!)
Exactly. Those of you who think this is harmless had better wake the hell up. I am a teacher. I see 10 year old girls who dress like Brittany Spears, hell, I see 5 year olds that do! This stuff sends a message to younger girls that they should be sexy. The last thing a 10 year old girl should be is sexy. Our society is over-sexed. Did you know that leading theorists are saying that because of all the sexual inuendo on TV, in music, in ads, etc....that girls as young a NINE are getting their periods?
And its not really sex that is the problem. We all know that parts of Europe are much more free regarding sex. It is that in the US there is a hidden message that "sex is naughty and dirty".....and kids hear that message. Then, they are tempted to be sexy and try sex (perhaps just because they are told not to by authority).
It's a mixed problem really. Sex being considered "bad" on one hand and then, with that message in mind, it being pushed on little girls. (If that makes any sense at all!)</strong><hr></blockquote>
10 year old girls do not have jobs. Thus, they do not have money. If they own Abercrombie and Fitch thongs, then it is probably because their parents bought them for the girl. If the parents bought them, they they most likely do not think that they are that bad.
You know, if I recally correctly, aren't the consertatives the ones that are normally saying things like "parents should choose what is right for their children, not the government"? but once A+F statrts to sell thongs, that thinking goes out the window.
Bottom line is that A+F selss things because people buy them. Supply and demand. it's the basis of our economy. If there was no demand, then there would be no supply. You can't blamd Abercrombie for supplying what people want.
SDW2001, maybe you have seen some research that I haven't but i find it hard to believe that seeing sexual innuendo on tv causes a girl to start having her period. I see bald people on tv and i haven't started to lose my hair.
10 year old girls do not have jobs. Thus, they do not have money. If they own Abercrombie and Fitch thongs, then it is probably because their parents bought them for the girl. If the parents bought them, they they most likely do not think that they are that bad.
You know, if I recally correctly, aren't the consertatives the ones that are normally saying things like "parents should choose what is right for their children, not the government"? but once A+F statrts to sell thongs, that thinking goes out the window.
Bottom line is that A+F selss things because people buy them. Supply and demand. it's the basis of our economy. If there was no demand, then there would be no supply. You can't blamd Abercrombie for supplying what people want.
SDW2001, maybe you have seen some research that I haven't but i find it hard to believe that seeing sexual innuendo on tv causes a girl to start having her period. I see bald people on tv and i haven't started to lose my hair.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. I am for responsible parenting. And, I doubt it is only conservatives making the statement that parents should guide children.
2. I don't question the demand. I think it is crude, and inappropriate, and I vow I would never buy anything like that once I have kids.
But, then again, weed is in demand too....so I guess you are saying that is OK?
3. I said theory, not research. But, it is a proven fact that girls are starting to get their periods when they are younger (of course not all of them). The thinking is that the brain is stimulated by images, sounds ,etc at the subconscious level. The "losing my hair" comment is funny, but not applicable. A girl getting her period could very well be a psychosomatic response (meaning one that is real, but caused by an external factor....the best example being someone "making himself sick" over stress, etc.). Hair loss is generally not, but rather genetic. Of course, I'm sure that some families have early mensturation in their genes too.
They can sell the sh!t and I'll criticize it, I hate that gripe that I should love everything a company does because they have a right to do so.
They'll make them and sell them to morons who continue the circle of unwed mothers under 17 and I'll b1tch about it, deal?
---
What the hell is the point of putting "eye candy" on panties for little girls? That's fscking sick.
And moms saying that sh!t is cute were "raised" thinking sex is how men show they love them. I wonder how old the moms buying this garbage are.
10 + 13 = ??... oh hell they don't know, they didn't get to finish their sophomore year in high school.
"Honey, thank God you're pretty, I'm going to get you these thong panties with 'eye candy' on them so you'll know that you're only worth what your looks and sexual actions will buy."
"wink wink"... What the hell is that!?
Why not cut to the chase and write "Fsck me, big boy!" on them?
Goddam cowards, I say, if you're going to follow a line of thought do it right.
Thong underwear I have nothing against. In theory, they're fine, but when you live in this society that objectifies girls at younger and younger ages you realize that this **** isn't just for practicality...
<strong>They can sell the sh!t and I'll criticize it, I hate that gripe that I should love everything a company does because they have a right to do so.
They'll make them and sell them to morons who continue the circle of unwed mothers under 17 and I'll b1tch about it, deal?
---
What the hell is the point of putting "eye candy" on panties for little girls? That's fscking sick.
And moms saying that sh!t is cute were "raised" thinking sex is how men show they love them. I wonder how old the moms buying this garbage are.
10 + 13 = ??... oh hell they don't know, they didn't get to finish their sophomore year in high school.
"Honey, thank God you're pretty, I'm going to get you these thong panties with 'eye candy' on them so you'll know that you're only worth what your looks and sexual actions will buy."
"wink wink"... What the hell is that!?
Why not cut to the chase and write "Fsck me, big boy!" on them?
Goddam cowards, I say, if you're going to follow a line of thought do it right.
Thong underwear I have nothing against. In theory, they're fine, but when you live in this society that objectifies girls at younger and younger ages you realize that this **** isn't just for practicality...
<strong>They can sell the sh!t and I'll criticize it, I hate that gripe that I should love everything a company does because they have a right to do so.
They'll make them and sell them to morons who continue the circle of unwed mothers under 17 and I'll b1tch about it, deal?
---
What the hell is the point of putting "eye candy" on panties for little girls? That's fscking sick.
And moms saying that sh!t is cute were "raised" thinking sex is how men show they love them. I wonder how old the moms buying this garbage are.
10 + 13 = ??... oh hell they don't know, they didn't get to finish their sophomore year in high school.
"Honey, thank God you're pretty, I'm going to get you these thong panties with 'eye candy' on them so you'll know that you're only worth what your looks and sexual actions will buy."
"wink wink"... What the hell is that!?
Why not cut to the chase and write "Fsck me, big boy!" on them?
Goddam cowards, I say, if you're going to follow a line of thought do it right.
Thong underwear I have nothing against. In theory, they're fine, but when you live in this society that objectifies girls at younger and younger ages you realize that this **** isn't just for practicality...
It's not Abercrombie's duty to be decent. It's not Abercrombie's duty to make sure your daughter's behavior conforms to your values.
After all, isn't it the conservative mindset the one where family values is most important? If your family values are facing defeat by corporate marketing, then maybe we should blame bad parenting.
When I was in Hawaii over spring break, I saw a woman no younger than 80 in a thong bikini. Now THAT should be illegal. <-- a joke.
[quote]It's not Abercrombie's duty to be decent.<hr></blockquote>
A&F's duty is to make money.
If they do it by selling clothes that tell little girls that their use in life is to be a pin-cushion then that's fine.
If they do it by selling chastity belts and bibles then that's fine, too.
[quote]It's not Abercrombie's duty to make sure your daughter's behavior conforms to your values.<hr></blockquote>
I don't know who you are addressing with "your", but it certainly makes no sense in this thread seeing how no one has said it is A&F's duty to make sure daughters follow parents' values.
[quote]After all, isn't it the conservative mindset the one where family values is most important?<hr></blockquote>
Hey, you should be answering that, you're the Republican.
[quote]If your family values are facing defeat by corporate marketing, then maybe we should blame bad parenting.<hr></blockquote>
Oh good. More free advertising for Abercrombie. Maybe they should market a line of crotchless diapers next quarter- that'll really whip people up!
Sad to see a company that had such a <a href="http://www.abercrombie.com/anf/lifestyles/html/afhistory.html"; target="_blank">rich history</a> has become seemingly a catalogue for pedophiles. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>It's not Abercrombie's duty to be decent. It's not Abercrombie's duty to make sure your daughter's behavior conforms to your values.
After all, isn't it the conservative mindset the one where family values is most important? If your family values are facing defeat by corporate marketing, then maybe we should blame bad parenting.
When I was in Hawaii over spring break, I saw a woman no younger than 80 in a thong bikini. Now THAT should be illegal. <-- a joke.
This is the problem! People like you who think as long as something isn't illegal, then it must be OK. And, I don't see how anyone that sees these things with the words "eye candy" and "wink wink" on them can think they are moral.
When we market sexy things to girls as young as ten, we have descended into moral collapse. It IS their responsibility to act in a decent way. It is EVERONE'S responsibility to do so. Having the freedom to do something and actually doing it are two different things.
In any case, this borders on "corrupting the morals of a minor" as far as I'm concerned. What if someone published pictures of young girls in thongs with those words on them.....don't you think they'd be arrested?
Comments
But thanks for putting words in my mouth, I think my obscenely pathetic number of posts makes it evident that thoughts are something rare to me.
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
<strong>If a 10 year old is wearing thongs it's because their parent(s) bought it & think it's OK.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Amen. And when if comes down to it, as long as you aren't doing things with 10 year olds that you shouldn't, no one will even see the thongs besides the girl when she puts it on, and her parents when they do the laundry. How can someone be offended by something they can't even see?!
Anyway, from the article:
"Abercrombie and Fitch is selling clothes to make children sexually stimulating to adults," said Brian Camenker of the Parents' Rights Coalition.
Now I may be a tad bit slow here... but if an adult is in a position to see a 10 year old gir's frickin underwear, I think that adult had already found something sexually stimulating about that girl...
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: murbot ]</p>
" -- selling thong underwear with sexually charged phrases for children. The skimpy undies have the words "eye candy'' and "wink wink'' printed on the front."
What(who!)are these messages for? A ten year old girl's boyfriend? Nope, this is pure stupidity on A&F's part. Pure stupidity.
<strong>For anyone here believing this crap is harmless check out <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2002/05/22/news/companies/abercrombie.ap/index.htm"; target="_blank">cnn's article</a>...
" -- selling thong underwear with sexually charged phrases for children. The skimpy undies have the words "eye candy'' and "wink wink'' printed on the front."
What(who!)are these messages for? A ten year old girl's boyfriend? Nope, this is pure stupidity on A&F's part. Pure stupidity.
Exactly. Those of you who think this is harmless had better wake the hell up. I am a teacher. I see 10 year old girls who dress like Brittany Spears, hell, I see 5 year olds that do! This stuff sends a message to younger girls that they should be sexy. The last thing a 10 year old girl should be is sexy. Our society is over-sexed. Did you know that leading theorists are saying that because of all the sexual inuendo on TV, in music, in ads, etc....that girls as young a NINE are getting their periods?
And its not really sex that is the problem. We all know that parts of Europe are much more free regarding sex. It is that in the US there is a hidden message that "sex is naughty and dirty".....and kids hear that message. Then, they are tempted to be sexy and try sex (perhaps just because they are told not to by authority).
It's a mixed problem really. Sex being considered "bad" on one hand and then, with that message in mind, it being pushed on little girls. (If that makes any sense at all!)
Anyone who would but this crap for their kids is a substandard human being and first in line for my in-the-works Eugenics campaign.
I'm waiting for the "Hot 'n' Horny" diaper line.
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
<strong>
Exactly. Those of you who think this is harmless had better wake the hell up. I am a teacher. I see 10 year old girls who dress like Brittany Spears, hell, I see 5 year olds that do! This stuff sends a message to younger girls that they should be sexy. The last thing a 10 year old girl should be is sexy. Our society is over-sexed. Did you know that leading theorists are saying that because of all the sexual inuendo on TV, in music, in ads, etc....that girls as young a NINE are getting their periods?
And its not really sex that is the problem. We all know that parts of Europe are much more free regarding sex. It is that in the US there is a hidden message that "sex is naughty and dirty".....and kids hear that message. Then, they are tempted to be sexy and try sex (perhaps just because they are told not to by authority).
It's a mixed problem really. Sex being considered "bad" on one hand and then, with that message in mind, it being pushed on little girls. (If that makes any sense at all!)</strong><hr></blockquote>
10 year old girls do not have jobs. Thus, they do not have money. If they own Abercrombie and Fitch thongs, then it is probably because their parents bought them for the girl. If the parents bought them, they they most likely do not think that they are that bad.
You know, if I recally correctly, aren't the consertatives the ones that are normally saying things like "parents should choose what is right for their children, not the government"? but once A+F statrts to sell thongs, that thinking goes out the window.
Bottom line is that A+F selss things because people buy them. Supply and demand. it's the basis of our economy. If there was no demand, then there would be no supply. You can't blamd Abercrombie for supplying what people want.
SDW2001, maybe you have seen some research that I haven't but i find it hard to believe that seeing sexual innuendo on tv causes a girl to start having her period. I see bald people on tv and i haven't started to lose my hair.
<strong>
10 year old girls do not have jobs. Thus, they do not have money. If they own Abercrombie and Fitch thongs, then it is probably because their parents bought them for the girl. If the parents bought them, they they most likely do not think that they are that bad.
You know, if I recally correctly, aren't the consertatives the ones that are normally saying things like "parents should choose what is right for their children, not the government"? but once A+F statrts to sell thongs, that thinking goes out the window.
Bottom line is that A+F selss things because people buy them. Supply and demand. it's the basis of our economy. If there was no demand, then there would be no supply. You can't blamd Abercrombie for supplying what people want.
SDW2001, maybe you have seen some research that I haven't but i find it hard to believe that seeing sexual innuendo on tv causes a girl to start having her period. I see bald people on tv and i haven't started to lose my hair.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. I am for responsible parenting. And, I doubt it is only conservatives making the statement that parents should guide children.
2. I don't question the demand. I think it is crude, and inappropriate, and I vow I would never buy anything like that once I have kids.
But, then again, weed is in demand too....so I guess you are saying that is OK?
3. I said theory, not research. But, it is a proven fact that girls are starting to get their periods when they are younger (of course not all of them). The thinking is that the brain is stimulated by images, sounds ,etc at the subconscious level. The "losing my hair" comment is funny, but not applicable. A girl getting her period could very well be a psychosomatic response (meaning one that is real, but caused by an external factor....the best example being someone "making himself sick" over stress, etc.). Hair loss is generally not, but rather genetic. Of course, I'm sure that some families have early mensturation in their genes too.
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: scott_h_phd ]</p>
And God bless them! But the operative word in that sentence is 'woman's', not girl's.
They'll make them and sell them to morons who continue the circle of unwed mothers under 17 and I'll b1tch about it, deal?
---
What the hell is the point of putting "eye candy" on panties for little girls? That's fscking sick.
And moms saying that sh!t is cute were "raised" thinking sex is how men show they love them. I wonder how old the moms buying this garbage are.
10 + 13 = ??... oh hell they don't know, they didn't get to finish their sophomore year in high school.
"Honey, thank God you're pretty, I'm going to get you these thong panties with 'eye candy' on them so you'll know that you're only worth what your looks and sexual actions will buy."
"wink wink"... What the hell is that!?
Why not cut to the chase and write "Fsck me, big boy!" on them?
Goddam cowards, I say, if you're going to follow a line of thought do it right.
Thong underwear I have nothing against. In theory, they're fine, but when you live in this society that objectifies girls at younger and younger ages you realize that this **** isn't just for practicality...
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
<strong>They can sell the sh!t and I'll criticize it, I hate that gripe that I should love everything a company does because they have a right to do so.
They'll make them and sell them to morons who continue the circle of unwed mothers under 17 and I'll b1tch about it, deal?
---
What the hell is the point of putting "eye candy" on panties for little girls? That's fscking sick.
And moms saying that sh!t is cute were "raised" thinking sex is how men show they love them. I wonder how old the moms buying this garbage are.
10 + 13 = ??... oh hell they don't know, they didn't get to finish their sophomore year in high school.
"Honey, thank God you're pretty, I'm going to get you these thong panties with 'eye candy' on them so you'll know that you're only worth what your looks and sexual actions will buy."
"wink wink"... What the hell is that!?
Why not cut to the chase and write "Fsck me, big boy!" on them?
Goddam cowards, I say, if you're going to follow a line of thought do it right.
Thong underwear I have nothing against. In theory, they're fine, but when you live in this society that objectifies girls at younger and younger ages you realize that this **** isn't just for practicality...
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed. Sickos.
<strong>They can sell the sh!t and I'll criticize it, I hate that gripe that I should love everything a company does because they have a right to do so.
They'll make them and sell them to morons who continue the circle of unwed mothers under 17 and I'll b1tch about it, deal?
---
What the hell is the point of putting "eye candy" on panties for little girls? That's fscking sick.
And moms saying that sh!t is cute were "raised" thinking sex is how men show they love them. I wonder how old the moms buying this garbage are.
10 + 13 = ??... oh hell they don't know, they didn't get to finish their sophomore year in high school.
"Honey, thank God you're pretty, I'm going to get you these thong panties with 'eye candy' on them so you'll know that you're only worth what your looks and sexual actions will buy."
"wink wink"... What the hell is that!?
Why not cut to the chase and write "Fsck me, big boy!" on them?
Goddam cowards, I say, if you're going to follow a line of thought do it right.
Thong underwear I have nothing against. In theory, they're fine, but when you live in this society that objectifies girls at younger and younger ages you realize that this **** isn't just for practicality...
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Groverat you're 100% correct. This is not bad in theory but in practicality it's just a horrendous choice for a designer to make.
After all, isn't it the conservative mindset the one where family values is most important? If your family values are facing defeat by corporate marketing, then maybe we should blame bad parenting.
When I was in Hawaii over spring break, I saw a woman no younger than 80 in a thong bikini. Now THAT should be illegal. <-- a joke.
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
A&F's duty is to make money.
If they do it by selling clothes that tell little girls that their use in life is to be a pin-cushion then that's fine.
If they do it by selling chastity belts and bibles then that's fine, too.
[quote]It's not Abercrombie's duty to make sure your daughter's behavior conforms to your values.<hr></blockquote>
I don't know who you are addressing with "your", but it certainly makes no sense in this thread seeing how no one has said it is A&F's duty to make sure daughters follow parents' values.
[quote]After all, isn't it the conservative mindset the one where family values is most important?<hr></blockquote>
Hey, you should be answering that, you're the Republican.
[quote]If your family values are facing defeat by corporate marketing, then maybe we should blame bad parenting.<hr></blockquote>
Hell yeah we should blame bad parenting.
Sad to see a company that had such a <a href="http://www.abercrombie.com/anf/lifestyles/html/afhistory.html"; target="_blank">rich history</a> has become seemingly a catalogue for pedophiles. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>
When I was in Hawaii over spring break, I saw a woman no younger than 80 in a thong bikini. Now THAT should be illegal. <-- a joke.
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
:eek: Your poor eyes!
<strong>It's not Abercrombie's duty to be decent. It's not Abercrombie's duty to make sure your daughter's behavior conforms to your values.
After all, isn't it the conservative mindset the one where family values is most important? If your family values are facing defeat by corporate marketing, then maybe we should blame bad parenting.
When I was in Hawaii over spring break, I saw a woman no younger than 80 in a thong bikini. Now THAT should be illegal. <-- a joke.
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the problem! People like you who think as long as something isn't illegal, then it must be OK. And, I don't see how anyone that sees these things with the words "eye candy" and "wink wink" on them can think they are moral.
When we market sexy things to girls as young as ten, we have descended into moral collapse. It IS their responsibility to act in a decent way. It is EVERONE'S responsibility to do so. Having the freedom to do something and actually doing it are two different things.
In any case, this borders on "corrupting the morals of a minor" as far as I'm concerned. What if someone published pictures of young girls in thongs with those words on them.....don't you think they'd be arrested?