Would you be interested in buying g-strings for your 10 year old daughter?

[Shaq]

Well the same genius at Acrocrombie&Fitch (sp?) who wanted to bring you t-shirts with bong smoking Asians proclaiming "Two Wongs Make A White" think g-strings for 10 year olds will be a hit.


I wish I knew how to actually spell the name of this company...and I wish I had a faster computer cause if I had one I'd search for press clippings but I saw it on the news. They plan to introduce a line of thong panties for preteens in the near future.


How do you feel about this? Would you buy em for your kid if she (or he) asked for them?

 

[OpposingBalance]

Would you buy em for your kid if she (or he) asked for them?

(Just for that particular part of the quote) *smack!!*

 

[Shaq]

Re: Re: Would you be interested in buying g-strings for your 10 year old daughter?

(Just for that particular part of the quote) *smack!!*

Why do I get smacked!?

 

[Basia]

I hope they get shut down, and the g-strings get shoved where the sun don't shine.

 

[Velius]

G-strings for little kids. That is pretty freakin' weak.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

This was on Fox News earlier tonight. Abercrombie and Fitch are marketing g-strings for young girls as the new "under-roos" with slogans like "Eye Candy" and "Woo Hoo" on the underwear. Definitely not something I would buy my daughters.

 

[Tammygurl]

Its wrong thats what it is. Children should not be thought of as sexual beings, let them be children not force them to act as adults.

 

[OpposingBalance]

Re: Re: Re: Would you be interested in buying g-strings for your 10 year old daughter?

Why do I get smacked!?

Sorry Shaq baby, it was just an automatic response to that particular part of the thread..
I would never smack you...well..lol...

 

[Shaq]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Would you be interested in buying g-strings for your 10 year old daughter?

Sorry Shaq baby, it was just an automatic response to that particular part of the thread..
I would never smack you...well..lol...

Oh...goodie then....

*steps back slowly*

 

[Allexus_TN]

This was on Fox News earlier tonight. Abercrombie and Fitch are marketing g-strings for young girls as the new "under-roos" with slogans like "Eye Candy" and "Woo Hoo" on the underwear. Definitely not something I would buy my daughters.

This disturbs me. Any panties for young girls labeled "Eye Candy" seems to send a wrong message to them at that age.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Do you think...

...this argument went on when "panties" came out as an option to "bloomers"?

Not sure about the labels though, that might be a little much!

Rhumb

 

[Sillyman]

Does anyone really think butt floss will appeal to a little girl? The only reason I can think of why a woman wears that shit in the first place is to excite sexual partners. Somehow I don't think little girls are going out of there way to do that, so I don't see how this guy ever thought it would become popular.

Kids think about one thing in most fashion choices: 1) Comfort and 2) What their friends are wearing. And since they won't know what kind of underwear their friends are wearing, it's really a non-isssue.

What WOULD be popular is crotchless panties...

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Do you think...

...this argument went on when "panties" came out as an option to "bloomers"?

Not sure about the labels though, that might be a little much!

Rhumb

I'm much less concerned about the style of children's underwear than I am about the "eye candy" and "Woo Hoo!" captions. I don't think that was an issue when bloomers replaced pantaloons and briefs replaced bloomers.

There is apparently a market for juvenile g-strings because the was an earlier thread about an English chain store adding them to their clothing line as well.

I'd guess that there are parents who can't withstand, "but all my firends are wearing them," accompanied by copious tears. I'm glad I don't have to deal with dressing children anymore -- mine are grown and my granddaughters clothes are my daughter's problem.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Re: Re: Do you think...

I'm much less concerned about the style of children's underwear than I am about the "eye candy" and "Woo Hoo!" captions. I don't think that was an issue when bloomers replaced pantaloons and briefs replaced bloomers.

There is apparently a market for juvenile g-strings because the was an earlier thread about an English chain store adding them to their clothing line as well.

I'd guess that there are parents who can't withstand, "but all my firends are wearing them," accompanied by copious tears. I'm glad I don't have to deal with dressing children anymore -- mine are grown and my granddaughters clothes are my daughter's problem.

I pretty much agree with you WH, but I'm older than dirt and don't have to put up with shit from anyone, especially a ten year old!

Rhumb

 

[OpposingBalance]

Does anyone really think butt floss will appeal to a little girl? The only reason I can think of why a woman wears that shit in the first place is to excite sexual partners. Somehow I don't think little girls are going out of there way to do that, so I don't see how this guy ever thought it would become popular.

Kids think about one thing in most fashion choices: 1) Comfort and 2) What their friends are wearing. And since they won't know what kind of underwear their friends are wearing, it's really a non-isssue.

What WOULD be popular is crotchless panties...

Actually silly, from what I have observed, they talk about and share just about everything..
And yes, they care very much what their friends are wearing.
When you add those two together, you get something very undesirable.
Plus, all kids want to be "grown up" ......you know?

 

[Sateema Lunasi]

It's Abercrombie & Fitch.

I work for an advertising and design firm and we did some of their ads in the late 90's. They suck. They, along with Calvin Klein in the mid 90's, got into controversy over posing very adolescent teens in commercials in sexually provocative poses that resembled amatuer porn video. They said it was sexy. It wasn't. They are known for preppie clothing and a line of "hipster" gear that in my opinion looks like shoddy dimestore trash. I honestly wouldn't wear that shit if they paid me to.

The idea of sexualizing a ten year old girl is sick. A thong panty is typically seen as a sexually provocative garment. It has no practical function but to sexually arrouse a viewer. And "Eye Candy?" Gross.

 

[Astro]

I would agree that g-strongs for pre-teens is sick and shouldnt be marketed like that. However heres a question, at what age would you say it as okay for your daughter to wear them?

 

[bluespoke]

Something similar went on sale in the UK just over a week ago.

They were withdrawn very quickly!

 

[Merelan]

To play the devils' advocate here...

Maybe A and F think that by putting them on the market it will force parents to pay attention to what their children wear and what it says. Thus making them pay attention to their kids and the people they hang out with. Thus... making them more active parents... thus...

you think? Maybe they have the future of our children in mind? And are spending millions of dollars to help parents who otherwise wouldn't pay this much attention to their kids? Maybe? Any chance at all? Not even a little????? Knowing that there isn't any chance they will last on the market. it is all for our own good they are doing this?

 

[brokenbrainwave]

fine, so A&F is going to sell thongs for little girls..is that really a shock, not to me. The part I find sad, unreal, and a moral bankruptcy is the FACT mom's and dad's are going to allow this. Sorry mommy, your 10 yr old child is NOT "eye candy". To bad daddy that you have to hear whining and see tears by doing YOUR job and placing a foot of reason down on the kitchen floor by saying "no". Should kids be allowed self expression, of course so, it build their self esteem, allows them to grow, and recover from their mistakes. With that said as mom/dad/guardian, you still must protect the innocents from being sexualized way to soon. Whats the difference in this and a 12 yr old getting her nipple pierced? Both cases are a sad display of the general lack of parenting skills I see every time I go out to the darn supermarket.

 

[Astro]

To look at this another way the put the G-strings on the market, girls ask for them, parents say no. Compared to the G-string anything else will seem mild, so something they had said no to before wont seem so bad, so they will sell more of their other riskier/more expensive clothes. A round about marketing ploy for the cost of making a few small items of clothing.

 

[RavenStorm]

In 15 days my daughter will be 7. I still buy her the little undies with cartoon pictures on them. I have no intention of ever buying her thongs. When she gets old enough to go out and make her on money then she can get them until then it will be granny panty heaven around here. Which I don't think I have to worry about because she fusses about my thongs.

 

[RawHumor]

Have any of you gone shopping for kids' clothes lately? I'm not even talking about 10 year olds, but 5 yeard olds' clothes!

Can anyone explain to me why a 4 year-old needs a 2-piece bathing suit?

The topic of this thread doesn't surprise me in the least. It just seems like more of the same.

 

[RavenStorm]

Raw I have seen what you are talking about. I see no point in any of it. I took my daughter shopping a few weeks ago and she wanted a pair of shorts that I swear were panties. I have never seen people trying to make kids clothing so much like adults like they are now. I prefer to keep my daughter a child for as long as possible.

 

[Calamity Jane]

Both of my girls (2 and 5) have 2 piece swimsuits. They're tall and thin, a one piece would either cause serious wedgies or be so baggy you'd be able to see up the leg holes anyway.

The issue of the captions on the underwear is more of a problem for me than the actual style of the underwear. I wore thongs long before I thought the were sexy because they eliminated the whole pantyline thing... my 5 year old rarely wears panties at all because she finds them uncomfortable. Should I force her to wear them so I'm not accused of 'sexualizing' her?