"Dads & Daughters" vs thongs

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-15-edit_x.htm

(snip)

Abercrombie is no stranger to selling sexy images to schoolchildren. Last year, it promoted thong underwear in girl's medium and large sizes with the words "eye candy" printed on them.

What is new is a campaign to stop the company's sexually explicit marketing tactics. This month, Dads & Daughters, a non-profit group based in Minnesota, launched an e-mail drive to shame Abercrombie's directors into opposing the company's ad strategy. Dads & Daughters President Joe Kelly figures some directors' ties to upstanding groups Ñ Lauren Brisky is a Girl Scouts Council board chairwoman and John Golden heads Colgate University's board of trustees Ñ will be embarrassed by any links to the ads. Company directors have refused to comment.

The group's appeal to the directors' standing as moral leaders is a twist on other activists' campaigns to change companies' policies on social issues. Among them: protests over the fact that oil companies Amoco and Atlantic Richfield were doing business with Burma's military regime.

(snip)

So far, Abercrombie isn't backing down despite negative publicity. Last year, when Christian groups launched a protest against the "eye candy" thong, the company refused to pull the product. Abercrombie spokesman Hampton Carney insists the thong was "totally appropriate" for children.

more...

Can't kids be kids anymore?

From the piece:

"full-frontal nudity for teenage girls. In store-window posters and on its Web site, the popular clothing retailer features a girl from the waist up, with only strands of hair covering her breasts.

Well, I went to the website and found the picture. It is hardly salacious, and it certainly does not show anything in poor taste. The model is clearly of age. (I'll try to put the picture below.)
And the picture is in the women's section, not the girls' or kids'.

But notice the line in the story quoted above: "full-frontal nudity for teenage girls." Then it goes on to say the ad shows "a girl from the waist up, with only strands of hair covering her breasts. The biased story is trying to make the reader think that A&F is showing naked 13-year-olds with "hair covering their breasts." I guess the editorial department at USA Today is following the same recipe that got people to think Saddam himself was flying planes into buildings.

These fundie groups are just anti-sex, plain and simple. To them, breasts are "just wrong." They have serious issues, apparently, with their own sexuality. Personally, I think the woman is darling!

I'm not fat, per se, but I'm definitely larger than would fit in a women's "large," probably. (I just got down to fitting into a 13 with some wiggle room.) Mostly my problem with women's "bottom-wear" is my muscle bustle. That "equestrienne figure" sucks!

Can I get some "Eye Candy" panties in XL, full back, with matching bra (38D)? My fiance'd go nuts! :)

She looks 18-21 and I'm sure that's probably what she is. I was a sexual active person then and I'd suspect my daughter will be too at that age. Americans are so hung up on nudity. I will never get it. I know these fundie types. My daughter (who's 11) had a friend from grades 3-5 who had very conservative, older (Republican) parents. Last year in 5th grade, the girl starting getting hair under her arms, but her mom wouldn't let her shave when she wanted too. The poor girl felt awful and wouldn't go to the end of the year swim party.
There is an element in these types who think if they stay in denial and put their damn heads in the sand, all will be well. They view the body and maturing as somehow dirty and it must be stopped or ignored or something. I can't figure these people out.
However, would I let her buy thong underwear?- no, but that's when parents have to use some common sense. If parents had some, there wouldn't be a market for this.

but I do have a problem with young girls being sexy too soon. Kids should have time to be kids and not worry about what the opposite sex thinks. I remember being young and we never thought about these kinds of things. I was still making mud pies and riding my bike, not worrying about what crop-top to wear. I see about 300 schoolchildren a week, and I have noticed a big change. I hear third graders talking about being on diets for chrissakes! Now nudity is something totally different. It's the clothes that I worry about. No nine year old needs a t-shirt that says "sexy". Nine year olds are not sexy-they are kids. I just find these kinds of things creepy. I'm not a prude at all, but I just don't think we should be marketing this kind of thing to little kids. They shouldn't be expected to grow up so quickly.

There's nothing wrong with sexiness and sexual appeal. But there's a certain age where kids must reach before they comprehend the reasons for doing so, not just because everybody else does it. Pre grade 8 kids should not be acting like high school seniors. It's an ugly result of the way our society is marketed.

they're doing their own laundry.

I know I probably sound like a total prude, but YUCK! The thought of walking around with a wedgie all day is most unappealing to me...especially if I'm running sweaty errands or planning to eat chili for lunch.

Sons vs. Thongs was unavailable for comment. (partially because they have ZERO members)