[quote]How are they marketing this towards 10 year olds?<hr></blockquote>
You don't market it towards the kid, you market it towards the dip**** mother. I can think of only one market bigger than dip**** mothers, and that's dip**** 12-year-old girls.
Seems the panties are having exactly the desired effect. Obviously Abercrombie's current strategy is to deal in shock value/generally pointless psuedo-conflict, to generate in fashion the equivalent of Jerry Springer -- vociferous but pointless argument.
What does a teacher tell (as Grover so lovingly put it) a wh0relet when the mother wh0re comes to pick her up from detention dressed up ready for the red-light shift?
Need any donations to get that eugenics program off the ground?
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Moral collapse? free speech is moral collapse? Oh God, the USA has an immoral foundation at the very heart of things! What the hell does "wink wink" say to you, BTW? So are you proposing some kind of slogan morality gauge?
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
So you think a 10 year old in a thong is sexy? Do you have naughty thoughts dancing in your head? This isn't Spider-Man. Uncle Ben isn't going to die because I've ignored Abercrombie's immorality. I'd rather have the freedom to not do it as well...and the freedom for Abercrombie to do what they want as long as they aren't harming people.
Your version of decency is not necessarily the status quo. Bikini clad adult women would be quite a sight in Iran for example. Hell, in 40 years, 11 year olds in thongs could be the norm, and we would probably think nothing of it...except a few geriatrics in convalescent homes mumbling, babbling.
[quote]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?<hr></blockquote>
It's better to teach a kid to hold your values as her own rather than shielding her from all things corrupt. You want to expose your kids to these things, otherwise you can't tell them what's wrong and what's right!
And no, putting <18 year olds in thongs isn't illegal in the least. It's done in publications everywhere.
Eugene, I can say with complete conviction that you are full of sh!t.
I read what he typed about "sexy things" and I understood what he meant. You're reaching with your attempt to belittle. And you fail. Miserably.
I think the thought of it is disgusting. Whether, it's Abercrombie's "right" to do so is irrelevant. Pretty much like your post. I don't need a company telling 10 y.o. girls that it's "cute" to wear thongs (!) with sexually charged slogans on them. It's bad enough there's going to be some sick motherf2cker out there looking to abuse a child cuz of some sick fantasy about kids in thong underwear.
And show me these magazines with 10 y.o. girls in thong underwear. I would like to see where you come up with your inanity.
<strong>Eugene, I can say with complete conviction that you are full of sh!t.
I read what he typed about "sexy things" and I understood what he meant. You're reaching with your attempt to belittle. And you fail. Miserably.
I think the thought of it is disgusting. Whether, it's Abercrombie's "right" to do so is irrelevant. Pretty much like your post. I don't need a company telling 10 y.o. girls that it's "cute" to wear thongs (!) with sexually charged slogans on them. It's bad enough there's going to be some sick motherf2cker out there looking to abuse a child cuz of some sick fantasy about kids in thong underwear.
And show me these magazines with 10 y.o. girls in thong underwear. I would like to see where you come up with your inanity.
[edit]whats up with no cuss words? weak. [/edit]
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh yeah, I'm full of crap, eh. Oh yeah, the pedophilia rate is going to climb through the roof! Man, pedophiles never had these fantasies before! We've just opened a whole new bag!
Why does the arbitrary age matter? What about the countless 14-17 year olds in thongs?
What about naked infants in ads? Infantophilia?
Like I implied, think back 50 years...what would people then think of women of any age wearing thongs?
This type of thing is only taboo because we have deemed it that way. What's next, no speedos for 12 year old competitive swimmers? You can't shield yourself and your family and ignore everything...things you find offensive are still going to exist in spite. Wisdom is better than ignorance.
<strong>Big deal. Thongs are just a certain type of underware. I don't see what the big deal is. 10 might be a little young, but after 12 or 13 so many girls wear thongs nowadays anyway so it's nothing major.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No kidding. Man, some people need to go to the beach some time. Holy ****, bare mid-riffs on 5 year old girls! OMG!
And looking at the latest Gap Kids swimwear catalog, some of those panty bikini bottoms look awfully thin.
Adult nudity will be no big deal within the next two decades, and for all ages following close behind...especially with the sheer ease of exposure with the net. We'll all be so jaded on sexual taboo.
1. If a ten year old girl is wearing thong panties it is because their parent bought them & are OK with it. (Wether or not the parent is acting wisely is another matter.)
2. A&F is a repulsive company run by people with (apparently) the moral values of pimps and drug dealers.
Christ, Eugene, could you at least act like you are reading my posts.
It must have taken a concerted effort to disregard everything I've said in this thread to ask this question: "Sluttiness is associated with nudity which is associated with sex? Is that what you're driving at?"
I think a retarded 5-year-old could get what I'm driving at. I've been nothing if I haven't been candid on this issue.
I've explicitly said that exposed flesh isn't the issue. I've explicitly stated MULTIPLE TIMES what I think the issue is.
Yet you acknowledge the sexually provocative two-word statements such as "eye candy" and "wink, wink?"
You are of course basing your argument on sexuality, flesh exposure...or sluttiness as you say. it was never specifically about flesh, it's more generally sexuality in relation to public acceptance. You obviously do not accept it, and anybody who buys/wears such an item is a wh-re. What is it about if it's not about sex/flesh? Your rationale is driven by preexisting taboo and expectation.
[quote]Will this increase pedophilia rates? No.
---
2) It isn't in the context of a society/world where sexual abuse is so horribly rampant.<hr></blockquote>
Don't contradict yourself. Which will it be...a stimulus for sexual abuse or just more placebo?
ummm....who is saying it will increase pedophilia? Not me. You are the one who suggested and rejected it. No one else here to my knowledge.
There is simply no justification for marketing thongs 10-14 year olds. NONE. And this isn't just "my moral values" talking. I think the vast majority of people would agree that those two statements are intended to be flirtatious in the least, and perhaps provacative.
And Eugene, please don't kid yourself (no pun intended). 10 year olds DO have purchasing power. They ARE marketed to all the time. Yes, the parents who buy them are scum, but that doesn't make marketing the stuff to little girls any better.
This also isn't about what may or may not be socially acceptable, such as adult nudity, etc. These are KIDS....LITTLE GIRLS, that are being marketed to. They are being flooded with messages of sex every day. We are not talking about ADULTS, we are discussing KIDS. It is simply not the same. It increases the POSSIBILITY that they will judge themselves based on sex appeal alone when they are older. It isn't just Abercrombie, it is the media and many other corportations, especially the recording industry.
Do some of you even KNOW what little girls dress like now? Do you have any idea? It is horrible. Parents cannot shield their kids from everything all of the time. Corporations must accept at least SOME responsibility. It is the blind pursuit of dollars that is driving this.
You can attempt to justify all you want. Marketing thongs to little girls, especially with those words on them is simply wrong. And yes, Eugene, there is a difference between "right" and "wrong" that we should all agree on for the most part, and on most issues. Or have you become so ridiculously liberal that you no longer believe there is a "right" or "wrong", rather only opposing viewpoints? Or worse, have you gone so far to the left that you believe that "right" and "wrong" do not exist, only consequences?.
Oh god, AppleOutsider is going to be jumping next week. That's when A&F is releasing their new line of juvenile diaphrams. With cute little phrases on them. To keep the innocence.
Hey Eugene...you got an extra one of those A&F "chink" shirts? I'd love to wear one. Even though I'm not Asian I still think I'd look cool wearing one...(see where I'm going here?)
[quote]Yet you acknowledge the sexually provocative two-word statements such as "eye candy" and "wink, wink?"<hr></blockquote>
Yes, I acknowledge them. I acknowledge that they are there and that they disturb me on a personal level.
[quote] What is it about if it's not about sex/flesh? Your rationale is driven by preexisting taboo and expectation.<hr></blockquote>
And your rationale is driven by pre-existing desires to buck all that which is percieved as pre-existing taboo and expectation. What's the difference?
For ****'s sake, Eugene, that is frustrating. Have you made no attempt to read my posts? I know you're not a moron, so I'm having a really difficult time understanding what is tripping you up.
Is it just that you have your nice argument written out in front of you and you don't feel like adapting it or have my very clear-to-everyone posts been unclear to you?
I quote myself:
"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."
Thong underwear I have nothing against. In theory, they're fine....
Hell yeah we should blame bad parenting.
Will this increase pedophilia rates? No.
Is it a symptom of a society that teaches girls that they need to be sluts to be loved at younger and younger ages? Absolutely.
Exposing flesh isn't the issue here, at least not in my mind. I wouldn't mind little girls wearing thongs at all given 2 conditions:
I think this last one tripped you up. You are set in one side of an argument so you color it in that way, and that's fine.
You are apparently willing to ignore dozens of words and then grab two words out of context and use them to frame your counter.
*Eugene scans groverat's post*
"blahblahblahblahblahblah sexual abuse blahblahblahblah"
"You see, you think these panties will cause sexual abuse!"
Even thought I said that the society is rife with sexual abuse. And since these things are new they certainly have nothing to do with it.
My point is a little bit broader than an A-causes-B correlation. Is that tripping you up?
[quote]Don't contradict yourself. Which will it be...a stimulus for sexual abuse or just more placebo?<hr></blockquote>
Did you not see me use the word symptom? Do we need to define it for you?
Never once have I said these will be a stimulus for sexual abuse. As a matter of fact, I've said the exact opposite.
I know you still won't see it, but I'll lay it out AGAIN:
Things like this are a symptom of a society that teaches girls and younger and younger ages that their use in life is sex toys and that their worth is determined by their physical attractiveness and their sexual desireability and proclivity.
Comments
That kind of defeats the purpose, you know.
One thing I don't understand: How are they marketing this towards 10 year olds? Does it come with a free barbie doll? Any examples?
You don't market it towards the kid, you market it towards the dip**** mother. I can think of only one market bigger than dip**** mothers, and that's dip**** 12-year-old girls.
What does a teacher tell (as Grover so lovingly put it) a wh0relet when the mother wh0re comes to pick her up from detention dressed up ready for the red-light shift?
Need any donations to get that eugenics program off the ground?
***edit***
HOLY FVCK! I can't believe you censored WH0RE!
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
I'm SO glad I stopped by. Because a bunch of men are talking in all seriousness about 10-year-old girls' panties, I hereby proclaim this to be the...
Thread of the Week!
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Moral collapse? free speech is moral collapse? Oh God, the USA has an immoral foundation at the very heart of things! What the hell does "wink wink" say to you, BTW? So are you proposing some kind of slogan morality gauge?
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
So you think a 10 year old in a thong is sexy? Do you have naughty thoughts dancing in your head? This isn't Spider-Man. Uncle Ben isn't going to die because I've ignored Abercrombie's immorality. I'd rather have the freedom to not do it as well...and the freedom for Abercrombie to do what they want as long as they aren't harming people.
Your version of decency is not necessarily the status quo. Bikini clad adult women would be quite a sight in Iran for example. Hell, in 40 years, 11 year olds in thongs could be the norm, and we would probably think nothing of it...except a few geriatrics in convalescent homes mumbling, babbling.
[quote]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?<hr></blockquote>
It's better to teach a kid to hold your values as her own rather than shielding her from all things corrupt. You want to expose your kids to these things, otherwise you can't tell them what's wrong and what's right!
And no, putting <18 year olds in thongs isn't illegal in the least. It's done in publications everywhere.
I read what he typed about "sexy things" and I understood what he meant. You're reaching with your attempt to belittle. And you fail. Miserably.
I think the thought of it is disgusting. Whether, it's Abercrombie's "right" to do so is irrelevant. Pretty much like your post. I don't need a company telling 10 y.o. girls that it's "cute" to wear thongs (!) with sexually charged slogans on them. It's bad enough there's going to be some sick motherf2cker out there looking to abuse a child cuz of some sick fantasy about kids in thong underwear.
And show me these magazines with 10 y.o. girls in thong underwear. I would like to see where you come up with your inanity.
[edit]whats up with no cuss words? weak. [/edit]
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: Shanny ]</p>
<strong> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
I'm SO glad I stopped by. Because a bunch of men are talking in all seriousness about 10-year-old girls' panties, I hereby proclaim this to be the...
Thread of the Week!</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Ha! Don't think so...
<strong>Eugene, I can say with complete conviction that you are full of sh!t.
I read what he typed about "sexy things" and I understood what he meant. You're reaching with your attempt to belittle. And you fail. Miserably.
I think the thought of it is disgusting. Whether, it's Abercrombie's "right" to do so is irrelevant. Pretty much like your post. I don't need a company telling 10 y.o. girls that it's "cute" to wear thongs (!) with sexually charged slogans on them. It's bad enough there's going to be some sick motherf2cker out there looking to abuse a child cuz of some sick fantasy about kids in thong underwear.
And show me these magazines with 10 y.o. girls in thong underwear. I would like to see where you come up with your inanity.
[edit]whats up with no cuss words? weak. [/edit]
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh yeah, I'm full of crap, eh. Oh yeah, the pedophilia rate is going to climb through the roof! Man, pedophiles never had these fantasies before! We've just opened a whole new bag!
Why does the arbitrary age matter? What about the countless 14-17 year olds in thongs?
What about naked infants in ads? Infantophilia?
Like I implied, think back 50 years...what would people then think of women of any age wearing thongs?
This type of thing is only taboo because we have deemed it that way. What's next, no speedos for 12 year old competitive swimmers? You can't shield yourself and your family and ignore everything...things you find offensive are still going to exist in spite. Wisdom is better than ignorance.
<strong>Big deal. Thongs are just a certain type of underware. I don't see what the big deal is. 10 might be a little young, but after 12 or 13 so many girls wear thongs nowadays anyway so it's nothing major.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No kidding. Man, some people need to go to the beach some time. Holy ****, bare mid-riffs on 5 year old girls! OMG!
And looking at the latest Gap Kids swimwear catalog, some of those panty bikini bottoms look awfully thin.
Adult nudity will be no big deal within the next two decades, and for all ages following close behind...especially with the sheer ease of exposure with the net. We'll all be so jaded on sexual taboo.
Is it a symptom of a society that teaches girls that they need to be sluts to be loved at younger and younger ages? Absolutely.
Exposing flesh isn't the issue here, at least not in my mind. I wouldn't mind little girls wearing thongs at all given 2 conditions:
1) They don't have sexually provocative statements written on them (seem to leave that part out, Eugene).
2) It isn't in the context of a society/world where sexual abuse is so horribly rampant.
This is all still part of existing manufactured stigmata.
2. A&F is a repulsive company run by people with (apparently) the moral values of pimps and drug dealers.
It must have taken a concerted effort to disregard everything I've said in this thread to ask this question: "Sluttiness is associated with nudity which is associated with sex? Is that what you're driving at?"
I think a retarded 5-year-old could get what I'm driving at. I've been nothing if I haven't been candid on this issue.
I've explicitly said that exposed flesh isn't the issue. I've explicitly stated MULTIPLE TIMES what I think the issue is.
Jesus, humor me. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
I would answer that question (again), but I don't really know if you'd read it or not.
You are of course basing your argument on sexuality, flesh exposure...or sluttiness as you say. it was never specifically about flesh, it's more generally sexuality in relation to public acceptance. You obviously do not accept it, and anybody who buys/wears such an item is a wh-re. What is it about if it's not about sex/flesh? Your rationale is driven by preexisting taboo and expectation.
[quote]Will this increase pedophilia rates? No.
---
2) It isn't in the context of a society/world where sexual abuse is so horribly rampant.<hr></blockquote>
Don't contradict yourself. Which will it be...a stimulus for sexual abuse or just more placebo?
It seems even you don't read your own replies.
[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
There is simply no justification for marketing thongs 10-14 year olds. NONE. And this isn't just "my moral values" talking. I think the vast majority of people would agree that those two statements are intended to be flirtatious in the least, and perhaps provacative.
And Eugene, please don't kid yourself (no pun intended). 10 year olds DO have purchasing power. They ARE marketed to all the time. Yes, the parents who buy them are scum, but that doesn't make marketing the stuff to little girls any better.
This also isn't about what may or may not be socially acceptable, such as adult nudity, etc. These are KIDS....LITTLE GIRLS, that are being marketed to. They are being flooded with messages of sex every day. We are not talking about ADULTS, we are discussing KIDS. It is simply not the same. It increases the POSSIBILITY that they will judge themselves based on sex appeal alone when they are older. It isn't just Abercrombie, it is the media and many other corportations, especially the recording industry.
Do some of you even KNOW what little girls dress like now? Do you have any idea? It is horrible. Parents cannot shield their kids from everything all of the time. Corporations must accept at least SOME responsibility. It is the blind pursuit of dollars that is driving this.
You can attempt to justify all you want. Marketing thongs to little girls, especially with those words on them is simply wrong. And yes, Eugene, there is a difference between "right" and "wrong" that we should all agree on for the most part, and on most issues. Or have you become so ridiculously liberal that you no longer believe there is a "right" or "wrong", rather only opposing viewpoints? Or worse, have you gone so far to the left that you believe that "right" and "wrong" do not exist, only consequences?.
[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
I don't need a company telling 10 y.o. girls that it's "cute" to wear thongs (!) with sexually charged slogans on them. <hr></blockquote>
Here's the gist of mt original post, Eugene. Everyone seems to be posting it and you STILL keep ignoring it.
Yes, I acknowledge them. I acknowledge that they are there and that they disturb me on a personal level.
[quote] What is it about if it's not about sex/flesh? Your rationale is driven by preexisting taboo and expectation.<hr></blockquote>
And your rationale is driven by pre-existing desires to buck all that which is percieved as pre-existing taboo and expectation. What's the difference?
For ****'s sake, Eugene, that is frustrating. Have you made no attempt to read my posts? I know you're not a moron, so I'm having a really difficult time understanding what is tripping you up.
Is it just that you have your nice argument written out in front of you and you don't feel like adapting it or have my very clear-to-everyone posts been unclear to you?
I quote myself:
"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."
Thong underwear I have nothing against. In theory, they're fine....
Hell yeah we should blame bad parenting.
Will this increase pedophilia rates? No.
Is it a symptom of a society that teaches girls that they need to be sluts to be loved at younger and younger ages? Absolutely.
Exposing flesh isn't the issue here, at least not in my mind. I wouldn't mind little girls wearing thongs at all given 2 conditions:
I think this last one tripped you up. You are set in one side of an argument so you color it in that way, and that's fine.
You are apparently willing to ignore dozens of words and then grab two words out of context and use them to frame your counter.
*Eugene scans groverat's post*
"blahblahblahblahblahblah sexual abuse blahblahblahblah"
"You see, you think these panties will cause sexual abuse!"
Even thought I said that the society is rife with sexual abuse. And since these things are new they certainly have nothing to do with it.
My point is a little bit broader than an A-causes-B correlation. Is that tripping you up?
[quote]Don't contradict yourself. Which will it be...a stimulus for sexual abuse or just more placebo?<hr></blockquote>
Did you not see me use the word symptom? Do we need to define it for you?
Never once have I said these will be a stimulus for sexual abuse. As a matter of fact, I've said the exact opposite.
I know you still won't see it, but I'll lay it out AGAIN:
Things like this are a symptom of a society that teaches girls and younger and younger ages that their use in life is sex toys and that their worth is determined by their physical attractiveness and their sexual desireability and proclivity.
[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]
[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>