Kiddie fashion has replaced skinny models as the Most Popular Ethical Concern Regarding the Fashion Industry of the day. The latest to kick up a fuss is Jours Après Lunes, a French “loungerie” line for 4-12-year-old girls. The gear itself is pretty innocuous (minus the questionable necessity of bras during the younger end of that spectrum), but the lookbook shots have got the ‘nets in a tizzy. Much like the now-notorious Vogue Paris shoot, many of the photos are styled to look like the girls are playing dress up, horsing around jumping on a bed, or mugging cutely (I would not say lustily) for the camera—all things healthy girls of that age really do. I tend to think that raising the pedophile alarm in these cases is a bit hysterical. Pervs are going to perv on whatever they like to perv on with or without anyone’s help. There’s as much skin in these shots as there is at the community pool, and little girls have always worn panties. The only shot that creeps me out is the one of an older girl (“12,” presumably) pictured with a big teddy bear. Without the bear you wouldn’t know her underwear wasn’t intended for grown women, and she’s lusting all over that camera. I already said my piece on how these things tend read to me, but by all means, decide for yourself.
This is the only one I think is gross:
Ew.
Another important issue regarding this is that it isn’t just “kiddie fashion replacing skinny models”, but that it can be viewed as an extension of the same imagery.
From The Society Pages’ SEXUALIZED VS. SEXUAL: THE CASE OF THYLANE BLONDEAU:
“Additionally, these images are hugely problematic for girls and women with body image issues. The fashion industry already promotes the thin ideal. These pictures… push the envelope by explicitly promoting the prepubescent thin ideal, a body type that is wholly unattainable for women. The normalization of beautifying a 10-year-old’s body type can have potentially disastrous consequences for women’s body image.”
Granted, while they were talking specifically about Thylane Loubry Blondeau, whose photos have been unarguably sexualized, the same comments regarding the display of the prepubescent body as some sort of fashion ideal could be applied here.
I think the big issue here is not that it might turn pedophiles on, as your angle seems to take, but rather that it negatively affects the psyche of young women to be so oversexualized at that age.
Kids should not be used for promoting lingerie. They can be an easy bit for pedophiles.
WhatisOmega3
I feel like a piece of shit even looking at it. So yeah. There’s that.
@5 +1
@5 & Joneser +1
Girls always get picked on. Violent toys are marketed to boys, and boys later commit almost all violent crimes. It’s not like girls buy this stuff and grow up to fuck people to death…unless they’re Madonna in Body of Evidence (filmed right here in the Rose City).
Well, I had to stop checking Blogtown at work today on the off chance I’d be scrolling past that stupid picture while one of my co-workers walked by, so yeah, that probably answers the question in the title.
What is the difference compared to normal little girl lingerie?
There’s the theme of womanhood to the pictures but it’s a fashion magazine for women, it’s expected to look like them. Looking at pictures of children in underwear is already suspect, so there’s no need to blame the “offensiveness” of these for the discomfort some people feel.
Quite possibly offensive/disturbing but that is hardly new…. Brooke Shields career launch anyone (albeit a bit older)?. Actually my real take………..I used to regret I not having kids, more and more I am glad I don’t. I don’t even know how to address this if I had lets say a 10 yr old daughter. I really don’t know
For the record I agree with you Marjorie, but I am curious why you found the last image disturbing? Because it is hinting at something other than the previous ones? Because it is attempting to be sexually suggestive in a disturbing/inappropriate manner?. I found it somewhat creepy too (not the kid, the actual shot)
Gaby: One of the big differences is that these little girls are wearing bras. They don’t need to be wearing bras – not for many more years.
I think the committee at Jours Apres Lunes that came up with this ought to be paraded down the Champs Elysees in posing straps and pasties. Quelle horreur. Gack.
It shocks a little to notice that it’s the older girl —looking almost like an adult— who displays the most conspicuous sign of childishness by holding a teddy bear: the overlapping between the generations is the most obvious. I see the whole as portraying the ambiguity of tweens and teens growing up, magnified for the show. Think fashion show and you get some provocative and bizarre creations. It’s far from what people walking down the street look like, and sometimes it’s better that way.
Rom, is it worst than swimsuits?
Gaby: I think so, yes. While both bikinis and lingerie sets may look fairly similar (separate top and bottom), they serve different functions. But I don’t think the issue here is whether or not the outfits looks similar in our grown-up eyes, or even whether us grown-ups perceive the images and ad campaign to be “creepy” or not – I think the issues are with intent, and with the messages this line sends to girls. I feel like handing an 8 year old a lacy bra is an explicit attempt to sexualize her. A bra on an 8 year old serves no utilitarian function – unlike a swimsuit top. It’s basically just teaching her that “intimate apparel” is a necessary and desirable thing.
Are we supposed to care so much about kids panties?
Should we put our nose in them?
I just find this a little creepy, sorry.