|
|  | | | | Marketing Sexy Underwear To 10 Year Old Girls | | | | | found on: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
written by captainebo, edited by Tim (Plastic) [ read unedited ]
posted Wed 22 May 1:42pm | | | | |
 | "Ready to provide their own very special version of Sex-Ed, Abercrombie & Fitch has released a new line of thong underwear for pre-teen girls," captainebo writes. "The thongs, which they describe as the 'modern-day version of underroos,' feature such gems as pink hearts surrounding the words 'wink-wink' and 'eye candy.' Oddly enough, parents are outraged, and describe the garments as 'inappropriate,' 'disgusting' and much worse. Reassurances for these outraged moms and dads comes from Abercrombie spokesman Hampton Carney:
"It's not appropriate for a 7-year-old, but it is appropriate for a 10-year-old. Once you get about 10, you start to care about your underwear."
| |
[ more plastic... ] |
| | | | | | | 1. At A NY News Conference...
| | | | by keta |  | | | at Wed 22 May 1:47pm | score of 3 funny | | | | | | |
earlier today, Mets baseball player Mike Piazza denied ever having worn a pair of these thong underwear. However, he did admit to dating some of the female models from the A&F catalogue.
-1 "irrelevant"
own your words...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 2. If these become a hit
| | | | by switcha |  | | | at Wed 22 May 1:50pm | score of 4 astute | | | | | | |
it will be nobody's fault except the moronic parent's that buy them for their little girls. I don't know of many kids that age that can afford to shop for themselves. If this ridiculous underwear sells more than a handful, if won't be Abercrummy and Bitch's fault at all.
Everyone knows that AF catalogs are the hottest thing on the under 18 wanker circuit. If a parent hands their kid money and lets them go buy underwear at AF, they deserve to be shocked by what they come home with.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 8. Hey kid, the first one's free!
| | | | by captainebo |  | | | at Wed 22 May 2:04pm | score of 2 astute | | in reply to comment 2 | | | | | |
"If these become a hit it will be nobody's fault except the moronic parent's that buy them for their little girls"
Is that like saying if someone sells a 13 year old kid a joint, we should blame the parent and let the playground drug dealer keep on selling?
Ebo
"In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds." -Martin Luther King
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 11. AF ain't giving out a first pair free.
| | | | by switcha | | | | at Wed 22 May 2:11pm | score of 3 astute | | in reply to comment 8 | | | | | |
I'd wager most kids buy their own drugs.
If you try to tell me that most kids buy their own underwear, I'd need some serious convincing.
Why spend good drug money on something Mom will buy for you?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 12. Re: Hey kid, the first one's free!
| | | | by Anonymous Idiot | | | | at Wed 22 May 2:13pm | score of 2 funny | | in reply to comment 8 | | | | | |
"Is that like saying if someone sells a 13 year old kid a joint, we should blame the parent and let the playground drug dealer keep on selling?"
No.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 15. evidence
| | | | by captainebo | | | | at Wed 22 May 2:19pm | score of 3 informative | | in reply to comment 11 | | | | | |
funny you'd ask. I just did a spot poll of the five students who are with me at the moment (ages 12-14), and 3 of the 5 responded that their parents let them shop for their own clothes (underwear included). While you are right, they do get that money from their parents, what is to prevent them from taking $10 of the fifty or so they might be given to buy a jacket, and use it for a dime bag?
FYI, one of the five is currently wearing a thong.
Ebo
"In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds." -Martin Luther King
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 19. Re: evidence
| | | | by captainebo |  | | | at Wed 22 May 2:28pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 18 | | | | | |
she wanted me to tell you.
believe it or not, it is possible to learn about children behaving badly without making them feel threated.
she also wants you to know that if her momma knew, she'd get whooped tonight.
Personally, I disapprove, but as Shanice (my student) knows all too well, I don't fight battles I won't win.
Ebo, now chiming in with his last post on this line of discussion.
"In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds." -Martin Luther King
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 20. Re: evidence
| | | | by switcha | | | | at Wed 22 May 2:28pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 15 | | | | | |
I don't advocate parents needing receipts of everything a kid buys, but if you are throwing money at them to do as they wish with (that's what "Here's money for clothes" amounts to), you can't be sure they aren't buying drugs. Therefore, the ball is in the parents court.
Furthermore, if you're too lazy to shop with your kid, you damn sure have a right to see what they buy with your money and make them return unacceptable clothes. Once again, ball in parents court.
If I were you, I wouldn't ask 12-14 years olds around you what kind of underwear they are wearing very loudly.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 25. Re: evidence
| | | | by switcha | | | | at Wed 22 May 2:41pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 22 | | | | | |
Thanks, Shanice. I was actually jokeing a little with that last part of my post.
You're pretty lucky to have a teacher who gets you invloved in online debates and discussions. I wish I could have had Plastic to read when when I was in school. Heck, I would have just liked to have the Internet!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 52. Re: evidence
| | | | by risc | | | | at Wed 22 May 7:39pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 15 | | | | | |
Didn't we just have a thread about how inappropriate it was for a teacher to ask students what kind of underwear they had on??
Lying in my plastic bed, thinking how things weren't so cool to me -- Bradley Nowell
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 70. Re: evidence
| | | | by onnel | | | | at Thu 23 May 2:33am | score of 2 astute | | in reply to comment 20 | | | | | |
Furthermore, if you're too lazy to shop with your kid, you damn sure have a right to see what they buy with your money...
You're sooo right. Who knows what kind of low quality drugs the kids will buy (or worse they might spend them oney on clothes!). You're much better off going shopping with them and teaching them how to tell the high quality stuff from the junk!
While this is tongue in cheek, I will note that I never bought drugs as a kid. My parents always emphasized that if I wanted drugs, I should get it from them. That way they knew that I wasn't getting garbage and that the stuff was safe.
Some may not approve, but my parents always did everything they could to make sure I was happy and growing up well...this was part of it. For the record, I'm almost 30 now, barely drink and have smoked pot all of once in the last 10 years. I can't exactly say my parents led me down a path of sin (they're both far more wild partiers than I).
To drag this back on topic, my point is that these underwear *might* be appropriate for some kids and hopefully the parents can talk with the kids about why they might want something like that. If my kid wants to dress up like a "slut" (whatever that means), I'd rather I know about it and have an idea why rather than the child going off to school well dressed in the mornings and then changing in the bathroom to hide it from me.
-- I'm not a thief. I'm a peeping tom.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 3. Our kids, are they sexy enough?
| | | | by box | | | | at Wed 22 May 1:54pm | score of 4 astute | | | | | | |
Stolen from an Onion headline.
But seriously, if child beauty pageants are acceptable, and children are more sexualized every day, wasn't it just a matter of time?
Being angry about this, and being an activist about things like this will only succeed in treating a symptom, not the cause.
Ad men need to be more responsible in the message that they convey to children, that they need to be sexy to succeed and be wanted. Toy manufacturers, ditto. It's ok for a 6 year old to put a sexy bikini on Barbie, but it's not ok for a 10 year old girl to carry 'dress up' to the next logical level, sexy lingerie?
Personally I can't support A&F for 'catering to the market' in this instance, but neither can I blame them for creating the problem.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 14. Eroticism vs. Paedophilia
| | | | by captainebo | | | | at Wed 22 May 2:14pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
"It's ok for a 6 year old to put a sexy bikini on Barbie, but it's not ok for a 10 year old girl to carry 'dress up' to the next logical level, sexy lingerie?"
I disagree. Barbie represents an adult body, and it is appropriate for an adult to wear said sexy bikini, nor is it inappropriate to teach children that adults may do such things. What is inappropriate about Abercrombie's actions is the marketing of child sexuality, which teaches paedophilia.
Ebo
"In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds." -Martin Luther King
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 58. Re: Eroticism vs. Paedophilia
| | | | by Anonymous Idiot | | | | at Wed 22 May 8:51pm | score of 1 astute | | in reply to comment 14 | | | | | |
What is inappropriate about Abercrombie's actions is the marketing of child sexuality, which teaches paedophilia.
It teaches pedophilia? You mean when these girls grow up, they're going to be attracted to young kids? Forgive me if I'm a bit skeptic of your claim, but I don't see how this would make someone a pedophile. Or is this a dumbed-down version of the argument that "violent movies make children murderers"?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 81. Steamy crap
| | | | by Miguel Agullo | | | | at Thu 23 May 6:50am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 14 | | | | | |
Barbie represents an adult body
I don't know what it represents, but it is a toy intended for children. As I kid, I had army men with guns. Was I scared of real guns? You bet I was. Did I make plenty of fake ones? Duh!
it is appropriate for an adult to wear said sexy bikini
As the good teacher you sound like, I am sure you can explain this to its fullest consequences to a class. Please do, because I'd be interested to know how you would focus it.
the marketing of child sexuality ... teaches paedophilia
I'd also like to see how you substantiate that with some kind of data.
Gimme a break
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 76. Re: Eroticism vs. Paedophilia
| | | | by captainebo | | | | at Thu 23 May 5:46am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 58 | | | | | |
it teaches paedophilia to the people who catch these kids in thongs. It also, to a lesser extent, teaches the kids to be on the receiving end of paedophiles affections.
Ebo
"In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds." -Martin Luther King
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 67. Also from the Onion
| | | | by jimmyjazz | | | | at Wed 22 May 11:46pm | score of 3 astute | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
Also from The Onion, from a "What Do You Think" box about the sex appeal of Britney Spears: (I paraphrase)
"She's giving young girls the impression that being attractive to men will get then farther in the world. How ridiculous."
Zing!
It's something to chew on. I'm also reminded of the tales that a friend of mine told me from USC Law school, about how every single woman in the school either had big tits, or had undergone "the procedure." A survey of one of these girls, who he had befriended, revealed this: (again, I paraphrase)
"My dad bought them for me."
Daddy's not stupid. He knows how this whole thing works. He wants the best life possible for his little girl.
Sick? Debatable. Effective? You betcha.
The problem, as I see it, is not that letting young girls know that they have sexual power is bad. They do have sexual power, and trying to keep that fact from them for as long as possible is tantamount to lying. What's more, girls should have sexual power. They should be allowed to feel attractive to men, because they are. They should be allowed to feel like women. One of my dearest friends reports the opposite problem. Her father raised each of his three girls as if they were boys. He never told them that they were pretty. He just told them to get good grades, because it doesn't matter what you look like. This is, frankly, a load of hooey. Not only is it false, it also strips young girls of a sense of femininity. Every ounce of identity as an attractive female that this (quite attractive) female has found, she has had to eke out, amid constant niggling thoughts that if she starts acting like a pretty girl, that makes her somehow dumber automatically.
The problem comes, as some very astute person pointed out recently, when your daughter has to choose between good and bad uses of sexuality. Good: getting guys to drool, and then shocking the hell out of them when you turn out to have a brain. Bad: fucking them indiscriminately. The decision is up to the girl, and is rooted in her self-image. And only a parent can give a child a good self-image.
The advertisers are doing what advertisers do. Leave them be.
If you thought the 20th century was fun, you're going to LOVE the 21st.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 68. Re: Also from the Onion
| | | | by jimmyjazz | | | | at Wed 22 May 11:53pm | score of 2 astute | | in reply to comment 67 | | | | | |
All that said, I do think "eye candy" is a bit much for a ten year old. But worn by a sexually healthy ten-year-old, nobody else is gonna see 'em.
If you thought the 20th century was fun, you're going to LOVE the 21st.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 87. Re: Also from the Onion
| | | | by ambrose | | | | at Thu 23 May 7:08am | score of 3 funny | | in reply to comment 67 | | | | | |
You have a point here, in that there seems to be an assumption of mutual exclusion between attractiveness and intelligence. Girls should not be forced to believe that they have only two choices in this world: be attractive or be smart. You are also very astute in pointing out that the job of the parents is to give a child a solid sense of self and self worth so that they are strong enough to be who they are, instead of being shaped by popular opinions and pressures.
Yes, a young woman should learn these things as they begin to confront their own sexuality. But, I'm sorry, a 10 year old is not a young woman. A 10 year old is still a girl. And I do not believe that girls should be taught about their own "sexual power". A child at that age does not need to know that they have the power to manipulate men, or even, as you say, to get "guys to drool, and then shock the hell out of them when you turn out to have a brain." Even if a 10 year old girl has begun puberty, her 10 year old male counterparts most certainly have not. So, do you really want 10 year old girls out there being "drooled over" by 13, 14, 15, 25 year old men? I would hope not.
This society seems to have a very unhealthy obsession with growing up quickly. Yes, teach young women that they can be smart and beautiful. Yes, teach women that they do hold a lot of sexual power. But teach it to them in their own time. Don't force it upon them before they are mature enough to understand the concepts and handle the consequences. Let kids be kids.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 90. Re: Also from the Onion
| | | | by jimmyjazz | | | | at Thu 23 May 7:21am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 87 | | | | | |
I went off the topic at hand somewhere early in the third paragraph: "...girls should have sexual power... They should be allowed to feel like women." That's not really what I meant to say.
However, someone farther down the page points out that girls are getting sexually developed younger and younger. Isn't the time to teach them about their sexuality when they begin developing it, whenever that may be? I've seen 12-year-olds that made me think dirty things, not because I would ever in any way touch a child, but because they didn't look like 12-year olds, and men are hardwired to respond to anything with a rack. Once your girl has hips and tits, no matter what age that is, it's time to start talking about how she should be carrying them. Otherwise you risk her getting her sexual self-image from kids her own age. And that's terribly dangerous.
If you thought the 20th century was fun, you're going to LOVE the 21st.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 75. Re: Our kids, are they sexy enough?
| | | | by DeaconDoWrong | | | | at Thu 23 May 5:11am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
It's ok for a 6 year old to put a sexy bikini on Barbie, but it's not ok for a 10 year old girl to carry 'dress up' to the next logical level, sexy lingerie?
G.I. Joe comes with tanks and machine guns, so you may as well take it to the 'next logical level' and let your child stock a nuclear arsenal.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 102. Re: Our kids, are they sexy enough?
| | | | by box | | | | at Thu 23 May 9:36am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 75 | | | | | |
These toys become our heroes. Barbie becomes a little girl's hero, so she borrows mom's makeup and tries to look like her. Me, I tried transforming myself into a car. Actually, no, it wasn't Transformers for me, it was Star Wars and GI Joes. If I had access to a Tie Fighter or an M-16, you're damn skippy i'd have been all over it. But can you fault hasbro for making the violent toys accessible to me? Then by the same token can you fault A&F for making the sexy clothes available? It's capitalism. Sure, A&F is tasteless, and are probably working up a fervor just trying to get headlines, but it comes down to a double standard;
Thongs for little girls? Tasteless.
War toys for little boys? Tasteless, but somehow acceptable.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | 5. Appropriate attire for young girls
| | | | by ksu93 | | | | at Wed 22 May 1:58pm | score of 4 astute | | | | | | |
Typically, I'm amused by the morals police who patrol the fashion and entertainment industries in search of targets for their sermons, but I'm with the parents on this one. Sexy and outright suggestive clothing for girls this young is not just inappropriate, it borders on being sick. "Eye candy?" Holy shit! If I ever hear anyone referring to my 10-year-old daughter as "eye candy" it's going to take an army of cops to keep me from beating the shit out of him.
Let kids be kids for God's sake. Little girls don't need to even be thinking about what the models in Victoria's Secret look like, much less trying to emulate them by wearing thongs. We're just begging for an explosion of pedophelia and pre-teen-sex if we let this become a trend. And shame on any parent who lets their daughters prance around in this slutty crap. If you ask me this is far worse than the pre-teen fashion shows that became infamous in the wake of the Ramsey murder.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -Ambrose Bierce
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 33. Re: Appropriate attire for young girls
| | | | by switcha | | | | at Wed 22 May 3:31pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 28 | | | | | |
Good point, but why should anyone be seeing your 10 yr. old's underwear? The fact that AF puts any writing on there at all sort of implies that someone will be seeing it. The only people who should see a 10 yr. old in her underwear are her parents, and if they think "eye candy" is an appropriate term for their little girl, there are some big problems there.
I've heard women say they wear thongs not so people know they have them on, but because it makes them feel sexy.
If a 10 yr. old wants them for the "secret sexiness", once again, I think there is a problem.
Whoever said in another post that this is just a symptom of a larger problem hit the most +5 astute point.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 51. Re: Appropriate attire for young girls
| | | | by Anonymous Idiot | | | | at Wed 22 May 7:35pm | score of 2 astute | | in reply to comment 33 | | | | | |
*sigh* The most important thing to a child is the peer group. Teenagers (13 and up) like thongs because it's cool/sexy like the movies/bad/whatever. The younger ones (12 and younger) want to be like big sister or some other older person. Not because they want to be sexy.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 32. Re: Appropriate attire for young girls
| | | | by kira | | | | at Wed 22 May 3:27pm | score of 3 astute | | in reply to comment 5 | | | | | |
We're just begging for an explosion of pedophelia and pre-teen-sex if we let this become a trend.
Not to mention eating disorders and body image problems and all the other things that are usually associated with people in their teens and older.
You're exactly right. This is going to make 10 year old girls start to compare themselves to models, and start being concerned about body image at an age when they should be outside, playing in the yard.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 69. Pre-Adolescent Body Image Anecdote
| | | | by sydneyschaefer | | | | at Thu 23 May 2:24am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 32 | | | | | |
Recently, a relation told me that she overheard her 8 year old daughter, who is as thin as a rail, asking a peer if an article of clothing made her look fat. Getting the young'un to eat anything nutritious is like pulling teeth anyway, and this pre-occupation doesn't help matters. I'm with kira - IMO, she is to young to be agonizing about her weight, which is on the low side as it is.
We keep you alive to serve this ship; row well, and live. - The Consul Arius
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 83. You fell right in the trap, mate
| | | | by Miguel Agullo | | | | at Thu 23 May 6:55am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 5 | | | | | |
Sexy and outright suggestive clothing for girls this young is not just inappropriate
How is infant underwear sexy? Who gets to see it in "sexy" situations? Isn't underwear worn underneath regular clothing? Nobody who would get excited by seeing it should probably not be seeing it in the first place, be it thongs or long johns!
FYI: there is a non-erotic reason to wear thongs. Ask you wife, mother or daughter and they'll tell you how they use it with tight pants to avoid the bumps created by more modest (and bulky) underwear.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 88. Then surely you won't object to...
| | | | by ksu93 | | | | at Thu 23 May 7:16am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 83 | | | | | |
...garter belts and crotchless panties for 7-year-old girls as well. After all, no one's going to see it anyway, right?
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -Ambrose Bierce
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 91. Thongs are NOT crochtless panties
| | | | by Miguel Agullo | | | | at Thu 23 May 7:25am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 88 | | | | | |
Garter belts and crotchless panties are clearly, only and fully erotic accessories (with the only exceptions of garter belts wore by old-fashioned women).
Thongs are not. If you can't see that, it's your prejudice, not mine. But here is a hint: many women put them on in the morning, to go to work, not at night, to go to bed.
Finally, the fact that the ages of the girls goes down with every post clearly show the hysterical nature of this discussion.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 92. Re: Thongs are NOT crochtless panties
| | | | by ksu93 | | | | at Thu 23 May 7:37am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 91 | | | | | |
As the original story pointed out, we're not just talking about your average thong underwear here. You may recall that some of the underwear to be sold by Abercrombie & Fitch to these young girls is adorned with such innocent slogans as "eye candy" and "wink wink" printed on them. I stand by my previous statements. Little girls simply should not be wearing this kind of pedophile bait. It's just plain sick.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -Ambrose Bierce
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 94. Oh! My bad! I see the problem now
| | | | by Miguel Agullo | | | | at Thu 23 May 7:51am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 92 | | | | | |
You are the kind of person who trusts everyone but their own eyes. Did you take a look at the pic accompanying the article? Can you tell me exactly what is so scandalous about the so-called thong in the picture at the top of the article? Yep, that thing with NO strings, light blue in color with a rather thick dark blue rim and some kind of colorful, kid-like decoration on one side? It looks to me like a bathing suit, the kind that crawls up kids asses exposing their buttocks at the swiming pool. Maybe they should ban swimming pools too! That's definitely a place where perverts can have a field day!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 95. Re: Oh! My bad! I see the problem now
| | | | by ksu93 | | | | at Thu 23 May 8:13am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 94 | | | | | |
They have one photo of one kind of underwear. The story clearly states that some of the underwear also has the sayings I quoted printed on it. What more do you want from me? Shall I go buy some and mail it to you?
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -Ambrose Bierce
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 109. Re: You logic defeats me
| | | | by The Mother Tucker | | | | at Thu 23 May 2:56pm | score of 2 astute | | in reply to comment 96 | | | | | |
I think the whole point is, how often did you think about underwear lines when you were ten? And was your underwear not emblazoned with cartoon characters and little hearts and flowers (for girls)? Ten year olds are by no means eye candy, they have no reason to care about underwear lines because they shouldn't be wearing tight pants and fitted skirts that women wear. No ten year old boy is ever going to say, wow, her butt is great, and no underwear lines!
Tuck-ee
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 112. Re: You logic defeats me
| | | | by Miguel Agullo | | | | at Thu 23 May 4:06pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 109 | | | | | |
I think the whole point is, how often did you think about underwear lines when you were ten?
Funny, I think the point is, how long ago were you ten? And did you think your elders were always right?
No ten year old boy is ever going to say, wow, her butt is great, and no underwear lines!
Frankly, as a grown man, I've never said that either (not the "her butt is great", but the whole compounded sentece). I think girls are waaaay more critical of themselves than guys will ever be (of them girls).
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 6. Overheard at A&F offices
| | | | by altoid | | | | at Wed 22 May 1:58pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
You're fired. Here's a pink slip for you. Why don't you clean out your office. Security will see you out.
It's my agenda, and if you don't like it, it also comes in mild, moderate and extra-chunky styles.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 72. Re: Overheard at A&F offices
| | | | by randombozo | | | | at Thu 23 May 3:15am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 6 | | | | | |
Eh? A&F's got this whole "let's put out product that people will complain about, get us alot of publicity, pull the product at a great cost and look like heros" thing down pat. Nobody's getting fired. They're getting huge bonus cheques.
This comment rates 69 on the Flesh scale of clothing catalogues, making it comparable to selections from Abercrombie & Fitch.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 7. Quel surprise
| | | | by NomiMalone | | | | at Wed 22 May 2:02pm | score of 2 clever | | | | | | |
So some person named Hampton Carney thinks it's okay for 10 year olds to wear Frederick's style undies. Hmmm...
1. Hamptons - Celebrity playground specializing in conspicuous consumption. Home/shag pad of P. Diddy and Lizzie Grubman, among others.
2. Carny - someone who works at a carnival, sideshow, or freakshow.
Right. Okay, then...
I'm loud, and I'm vulgar, and I wear the pants in the house because someone's got to, but I am not a monster. I'm not!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 9. ok, this may sound weird -
| | | | by deep13 | | | | at Wed 22 May 2:09pm | score of 3 irrelevant | | | | | | |
- but i'm told that if you don't wear a thong with certain styles of dresses, the outline of one's underwear is totally visable. i can see why thongs would be just as usefull for kids who just want to avoid dorky underwear lines.
deep13 out. push the button, frank.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 16. Re: ok, this may sound weird -
| | | | by 74westy | | | | at Wed 22 May 2:21pm | score of 4 funny | | in reply to comment 9 | | | | | |
i can see why thongs would be just as usefull for kids who just want to avoid dorky underwear lines.
Well no, I'm not really convinced but thanks for trying. This discussion was getting much to one-sided.
Anybody else want to try?
I am Sparticus!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 24. Re: ok, this may sound weird -
| | | | by The Mother Tucker | | | | at Wed 22 May 2:40pm | score of 2 astute | | in reply to comment 16 | | | | | |
What business do ten year old girls have wearing dresses that are tight enough to show underwear lines? The only time a child should be wearing clothing that tight is in organized dance classes. Until I was old enough to drive myself to the mall and pay for my own clothing, my parents pretty well kept what I wore in check, from pants to socks to skivvies. Parents should allow their children freedom in dress to a certain extent, but while the child is still dependent on the parent for money and transportation to any of these mind washing, money draining chain stores, mom and dad should definitely have the last say. Kids have no reason to be worried about underwear lines...what next, the miracle-training bra...guaranteed to make a AAA look just as natural as a real B? Sad sad sad.
Tuck-ee
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 23. Re: ok, this may sound weird -
| | | | by bray | | | | at Wed 22 May 2:38pm | score of 3 astute | | in reply to comment 9 | | | | | |
- but i'm told that if you don't wear a thong with certain styles of dresses, the outline of one's underwear is totally visable.
I'm far from an expert but it seems like this could only be true of dresses made out of fairly thin material. Frankly, I don't find the thought of 10 year olds wearing slinky dresses any better than the thought of 10 year olds wearing thongs.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | 17. Insane, hmm?
| | | | by masha | | | | at Wed 22 May 2:22pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 10 | | | | | |
The designs may be moronic - and I would question if they would really sell. But talk about a publicity stunt! A good way to get people in stores is to play on customers' desires to see these thongs with their own eyes. It can't be real, right? Then while you're at it, you buy yourself a perfectly respectable sweater.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 36. Re: Insane, hmm?
| | | | by jennyroo | | | | at Wed 22 May 3:41pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 17 | | | | | |
A good way to get people in stores is to play on customers' desires to see these thongs with their own eyes. It can't be real, right? Then while you're at it, you buy yourself a perfectly respectable sweater.
Not that I ever have or ever will shop at A/F, but let me just say I would never give my money to a company who thinks marketing thong underwear to 10 year old girls is a great idea. From the article:
McNamara said she was livid when she stumbled upon the thongs while shopping for her three children at Bayshore Mall. She grabbed a pair and confronted a clerk at the register.
I hope she also deposited the clothes she was previously interested in buying on the counter and walked out without purchasing a damn thing. I know I would have.
Neeples. Big pink ones.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 35. Someone said the same thing about Bruno Magli
| | | | by rkanodia | | | | at Wed 22 May 3:37pm | score of 2 funny | | in reply to comment 30 | | | | | |
during OJ's murder trial. I think the line was something close to, "There's supposed to be no such thing as bad publicity, but do you really want to have a major celebrity tying you to the phrase 'ugly-ass shoes'?"
My apologies to the original author.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 63. There is no such thing as bad publicity
| | | | by OneWingedAngel | | | | at Wed 22 May 10:10pm | score of 4 clever | | in reply to comment 30 | | | | | |
More like, "hey that company offends them! Lets buy their clothes!"
Too bad "them" ends up being wiser and more thoughtful adults and the speakers tend to be stupid teenagers with too much disposable income.
Besides, these days there is no such thing as bad publicity. I would right now link to this article in the Washington Post dated May 4, 2002 about A&F's Asian T-shirt 'gaffe' called "Abercrombie & Fitch: By Deliberate Gags or Inadvertent Gaffes, A&F Keeps Sales Up" by Dina ElBoghdady but I can't find it anywhere, not even on the website, except in my email inbox. But here's some choice quotes anyway:
"The strategy works like this: Create a controversy that sturs up a buzz around the brand name. Apologize, or not, for any offense caused. Then watch as curious shoppers swarm the stores."
"The company won't confirm any added foot traffic following the Asian T-shirts affair, but shares hit $33.30, a 52-week high, on April 18 -- the same day A&F pulled the shirts from its stores."
"After so many incidents, it's tough to believe these contentious public relations battles are anything but intentional, said Doug McIntypre, a partner at Ten United, an advertising firm in Ohio."
"The 'fake controversies' that A&F has mastered usually upset the kinds of people their customers does not want to be, said Lee Peterson, a retail consultaint formerly with the Limited."
And one month after the t-shirt incident, A&F reported record profits.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 99. Re: Who are you calling morons?
| | | | by Lemmy Caution | | | | at Thu 23 May 8:50am | score of 2 funny | | in reply to comment 89 | | | | | |
You idiot, I'm not saying that the complaints are wrong. I'm saying that the Slashdottees will take umbrage and then lose the gumption for a boycott as soon as something shiny gets released. Take a reading comprehension class, you idiot.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 13. Dearest Abercrombie & Fitch...
| | | | by osama bin rockin |  | | | at Wed 22 May 2:13pm | score of 5 brilliant | | | | | | |
Don't listen to what the rest of these "Plastic" idiots say, I think it's a great idea! Could you please forward me a copy of your new catalogue at your soonest convenience "wink-wink"!
Yours Etc.
R. Kelly
I was shocked to discover that "The Amazing Race" is actually just a show on BET...Isn't that a bit arrogant?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 111. Re: Dearest Abercrombie & Fitch...
| | | | by dswensen | | | | at Thu 23 May 3:45pm | score of 2 funny | | in reply to comment 39 | | | | | |
Let me tell you a little something. The above comment is not obnoxious. "I can't believe you wasted a fucking mod point on such an inconsequential post, you utter fucking moron." That's obnoxious. Now mod me down appropriately, for Christ's sake. Thank you.
(This would be obnoxious and irrelevant, by the way.)
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | | 29. Its not just A&F, and its not just underwear
| | | | by maml | | | | at Wed 22 May 3:01pm | score of 3 funny | | | | | | |
I was in Marshalls the other day, picking out some babyshower presents. In the 5-10 shelves, there were daisy dukes and midriff shirts. I don't remember kids ever being dressed in the latest hottest fashion. Maybe its cause I grew up in the woods, but it wasn't until kids were 12-13 they started even wanting to dress like adults. We just wanted to run and play and hit each other with sticks.
I've blocked AI. I'm happier now.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 34. Re: Its not just A&F, and its not just underwear
| | | | by kira | | | | at Wed 22 May 3:34pm | score of 2 brilliant | | in reply to comment 29 | | | | | |
And that's exactly the problem. Running and playing and hitting others with sticks (the kind from trees, not the expensive ones from Toys R Us) won't make anyone any money. So you have to start telling the kids that it's just mortifying if they're not in the latest fashions or if, god forbid, they have showing panty lines.
Personally, I didn't even know what panty lines were until I was maybe 15 or 16. And I grew up wearing my sister's hand-me-downs...and I don't think I was severely scarred by my lack of new, hot, trendy and sexy clothes...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 37. Even worse
| | | | by rkanodia | | | | at Wed 22 May 3:45pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 29 | | | | | |
At Target, while passing by the girls' clothing section (it is impossible not to avoid it, the clever bastards put it right next to the entrance) I saw a pink shirt in the 7-10 year old section that said 'Perfect 10' in curvy white letters.
Insert a wry comment about the kind of girl that goes shopping for clothes at Target if you like, but that still creeps me out every time I think about it.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 44. Re: Even worse
| | | | by tlon_uqbar | | | | at Wed 22 May 6:25pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 37 | | | | | |
For the record...I buy most of my clothes at Target.
They've got Mossimo for when I want to be the hip urban club-hopping hep cat; and Cherokee for the more mature "look at me -- I've made it in this world, yet still feel comfortable in hawaiian shirts" look.
Oh, as for the A&F thongs-for-kids...if these things stay on the market, I may lose all faith in our culture.
-- gh
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 47. Re: Its not just A&F, and its not just underwear
| | | | by subsailor | | | | at Wed 22 May 6:38pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 29 | | | | | |
"I don't remember kids ever being dressed in the latest hottest fashion."
I hate to point this out, but every generation, upon hitting a certain age, starts being shocked at what the younger generations are doing. As shocked as we may be at Britney Spears, were our parents any less shocked at, say, Prince (with Vanity/Apollonia/Sheena/whoever). Or, going back a bit further, the Seventies in general? :)
In a decade or less, this sort of thing will be non-news. As are things like the Sixties now.
"Peace through superior firepower."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 31. younger pussycat
| | | | by ookpik | | | | at Wed 22 May 3:12pm | score of 5 brilliant | | | | | | | |
so basically we now have available to 10 year old girls:
celebrities specifically marketed to the "tween" demographic including britney spears and co., josie and the pussycats and similar, and a bunch of dancing boys whom the wee girls are supposed to crush on.
make-up specifically marketed to the "tween" demographic, which started with flavoured lip balm and face glitter but now runs the full gamut from nail polish through lipstick to hair dye.
halter tops, low-ride pants, and various other sparkly, neo-disco attire in junior miss sizing.
oh! mini thong underwear! completes the outfits, really.
teen magazines sporting slogans such as "be sexy! even if you don't have sex!" (somebody even put that on a t-shirt for christina aguilera).
ok. and when oh when is it going to be time for some decent sex and relationship education? kids who are educated in the ways of love are more likely to wait longer, more likely to be safe, and more likely to have a good time. they may or may not choose the thong. kids who go along with all of this because they think it is the best way to be pretty and fit in are more likely to have self-esteem problems and grow up to be very pretty, very sparkly losers.
i vote that concerned parents send their kids to scarleteen.com for a good grounding in body and sexuality topics, but i voted for real world sex education some time before the thongs brought the issue to a momentary boil.
once again, the issue is: child-proof the world or world-proof the child? you cannot censor everything for kids, especially when they start to be a formidable market force. teach the damn kids how to exercise some good taste. (as a bonus, maybe the rest of us wouldn't have to put up with so much glittery garbage when we went looking for adult clothes and music).
everything is so neat!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 40. I Blame Britney
| | | | by Joust | | | | at Wed 22 May 4:41pm | score of 4 astute | | | | | | |
American society, personified by its hyper sexualized television commercials, ridiculous dating practices, and war-loving consumer culture, is slowly becoming a nation that celebrates pedophilia--as long as the word "pedophilia" doesn't pop up. We hate the word more than the act itself.
Britney Spears, perhaps the most celebrated performer in American history (I celebrate to her at least once a week, twice if frisky), has helped create a culture of pre-teen skimpily dressed girls, who appear to be (to some people) sexually available.
There might actually be a reason for this though. Girls have, over the years, been hitting puberty sooner and sooner.
I'd like to remind people that when Ms. Spears first hit the market; she was underage, surgically implanted, and the object of millions of masturbatory fantasies. So in many ways, lots of you have committed an act of pedophilia.
Early sexual readiness, some speculate, could be triggered through broad reaching sexualized commercialism, manifested as sexual imagery in beer, cigarette, car, and virtually all ads.
Basically, I'm saying that America is headed towards sexualizing little girls, because:
a.) We've proven that 17 year olds are hot. Why can't we extend that definition to 16 year olds?
b.) Sex sells.
c.) Little girls are hitting puberty earlier and earlier, and therefore are sexier earlier. Once a girl reaches sexual maturity, doesn't that make her attractive by society's standards? After all, in American culture, we don't really demand that women have a source of income to be considered attractive.
Now that I think about it, maybe I shouldn't have posted.
To continue: Insert another token.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 77. Re: I Blame Britney
| | | | by jwalther420 | | | | at Thu 23 May 5:50am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 40 | | | | | |
Britney Spears, perhaps the most celebrated performer in American history
Umm...Most celebrated? You're kidding right? I really really hope you're kidding.
I can think of perhaps 1000 performers more celebrated than her but I'll just give you a top few in no particular order:
1.) Elvis
2.) Grateful Dead
3.) Anything Motown
4.) Michael Jackson
5.) Hell...even Bette Midler (ugh)
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 97. Re: I Blame Britney
| | | | by Joust | | | | at Thu 23 May 8:19am | score of 2 funny | | in reply to comment 77 | | | | | |
You must not have read my post.
I'm sorry, but I don't jerk off to:
1.) Elvis
2.) The Grateful Dead
3.) Anything Motown
4.) Michael Jackson
5.) Hell...even Bette Midler (ugh)
Britney, however, is the second most searched for subject on the internet, right next to the Playstation 2. I'm pretty certain that Elvis doesn't even rank.
To continue: Insert another token.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 103. Re: I Blame Britney
| | | | by jwalther420 | | | | at Thu 23 May 10:06am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 97 | | | | | |
I figured by celebrated you meant:
3: assign great social importance to; "The film director was celebrated all over Hollywood"; "The tenor was lionized in Vienna" [syn: {lionize}]
I didn't realize you meant temporarily popular on a primarily Pr0n outlet like the internet.
My bad...i guess
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 41. Hint: The answers are all 'Yes'
| | | | by bee1000 | | | | at Wed 22 May 4:53pm | score of 5 astute | | | | | | |
1. Do I understand the objections people have to A&F pre-teen thongs?
2. If I had a daughter, would I object to her wearing A&F pre-teen thongs?
3. Is A&F going to get a lot of publicity for these pre-teen thongs, like they get every time they publish a new "catalog" featuring scantily clad models?
4. Is that publicity going to increase A&F's cache with its core customers?
5. Does A&F know exactly what they are doing?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 43. Perhaps I missed the turning point.
| | | | by MAYORBOB | | | | at Wed 22 May 6:06pm | score of 1 funny | | | | | | |
But when was it exactly that A&F went from selling clothes (and mostly outdoors stuff) to being the illegitimate mercantile child of Fredericks of Hollywood and Victoria's Secret?
Tending to final details.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | | | 49. this is ridiculous
| | | | by aquadhere | | | | at Wed 22 May 7:28pm | score of 1 brilliant | | | | | | |
This company sounds like a front for bigots, paedophiles and just bogans in general. Somebody needs to give the ceo a slap on the head and have this shouted at them:
WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 55. Re: this is ridiculous
| | | | by mischief | | | | at Wed 22 May 8:20pm | score of 4 informative | | in reply to comment 49 | | | | | |
WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING? Net sales for the fourth quarter of the 2001 fiscal year were $466.6 million, an increase of 6% from $439.4 million for the fourth quarter a year ago. Operating income was $128.6 million compared to $124.1 million last year. A&F recorded its 38th consecutive quarter of record earnings as net income increased to $79.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2001 as compared to $77.2 million last year. Earnings per diluted share were $.78, up 3% from $.76 last year. Does this answer your question?
"And then... and then... and then...", and then the man who stuttered died, his last words an echo of his life
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 50. Where Do We Draw The Line Here?
| | | | by armaxmore | | | | at Wed 22 May 7:28pm | score of 2 informative | | | | | | |
A&F's new pre-teen thongs isn't the only thing that parents need to be outraged. Remember those racy Clavin Klein ads that featured those sleazy casting calls, model that look like they're on smack, and the 2 boys in their underwear. Those ads sparked controversy and was later pulled. Abercrombie and Fitch aren't the only people who pushing the envelopes. There are provocative clothing that are being marketed to kids in stores like American Eagle, Wet Seal, Rave, Hot Topics, Target, JCPenney's, Hecht's and more. It seems that A&F want to be the Bennetton of the Gen Y Crowd. They have notion that the clothes sell themselves, and their salespeople just show them off. I work at a retail, and some employees have told me that they don't size the clothes. Just imagine some parent outraged that they gave their child a thong either too big or too small. We have to ask ourselves where do we draw the line in this form of shameless promotions!
Talk is Cheap! Free Speech Isn't!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 53. Damn puritan 'mericans
| | | | by risc | | | | at Wed 22 May 7:43pm | score of 2 clever | | | | | | |
What is the big deal, kids all over the world run around nekkid if there parents can't afford clothes.
Why is a 10yo wearing a thong inherently bad? Isn't that like saying a rape victim was asking for it because of what she was wearing?
Lying in my plastic bed, thinking how things weren't so cool to me -- Bradley Nowell
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 56. There's a BIG fucking difference...
| | | | by RawkStah | | | | at Wed 22 May 8:27pm | score of 2 clever | | in reply to comment 53 | | | | | |
between being a naked child and wearing thong underwear that says 'eye candy'.
There's functional (i.e. stuff doesn't get caught in zippers) underwear, and then there's undergarments that are meant to be removed after causing arousal. There's over-the-shoulder-boulder-holders and under-the-butt-nut-huts, and then there's underwear that's meant to be arousing, to one, if not both, parties involved.
Naked kids are not sexual, they're just naked. (Yes, to some people, they are arousing, but those people are sick). 10 year old girls wearing thongs that say 'Eye Candy' are clearly meant to be sexualized.
So, risc, if a 10 year old girl wearing thong underwear is raped by someone, was she asking for it?
Nothing scares us more than what we want.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 61. Re: Damn puritan 'mericans
| | | | by Anonymous Idiot | | | | at Wed 22 May 9:24pm | score of 2 clever | | in reply to comment 53 | | | | | |
Why is a 10yo wearing a thong inherently bad? Isn't that like saying a rape victim was asking for it because of what she was wearing?
Good point. There seems to be some hypocricy with people in saying that scantily clad women aren't asking to be raped, but scantily clad girls are asking to be abused. How can one provoke and not the other?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 60. When I was 10.....
| | | | by andy p | | | | at Wed 22 May 9:15pm | score of 2 astute | | | | | | |
Let me make this clear: Thongs will NOT make little girls turn into nyphos! It may even prevent it. Allow me to relate a little of my childhood (none of the girls involved wore thongs):
Age 10 would have been grade 5 right....? Yep, In grade 5 I was flashed by girls in my class at the park. Come to think of it, there were only 2 girls who weren't flat as a board in my entire grade but they were insecure and wanted attention. Like it or not, when I was in grade 5 I knew what girls underwear looked like. I felt up a girl at in the bushes during a game of capture the flag that summer. Unless my memory is faulty I grabbed quite a bit of tit at the tender age of 10.
So, how would thongs prevent behavior such as that? Easy, every girl involved was somehow insecure about their body, and probably the only reason they let me near them was because they wanted to feel sexy/attractive. If something as simple as a thong can boost their self confidence, maybe they wouldn't need to let guys like me feel them up just to feel good about themselves.
Damn, I was a dirty little bastard.
Barrels are just crates with delusions of grandeur
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 65. Social Change
| | | | by eduardo | | | | at Wed 22 May 10:30pm | score of 1 funny | | | | | | |
As some comedian cleverly observed: the fact that men got women to wear a string for underwear is an amazing indication of how well we're doing.
Now, like all things, early education is important. So A&F are doing the future generations a favor. Nowdays, when a woman walks by in tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight pants and no panty lines, some hoodlim is gonna holler "thong-tho-rong-song-thong." But if the next generation of kids grow up with thongs, then it will be more normal and accepted.
So it's all good.
J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 78. Wal-Mart's next
| | | | by sunderland56 | | | | at Thu 23 May 5:51am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Hey, thongs for 10-year-olds is nowhere near as disgusting as Wal-Mart's thongs for "queen" sizes.....
But seriously: what's the fuss? It's just a different style of underwear. Imagine that boxers were men's only choice in undies, and then someone came out with briefs. A few years later, a trendy store comes out with briefs for little boys. Would people be outraged over that??
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 82. Re: Wal-Mart's next
| | | | by FanOfCheese | | | | at Thu 23 May 6:53am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 78 | | | | | |
I believe that your analogy is a bit off. To compare it to boy's fashion, let's say that A&F came out with a line of leopard-print bikini briefs with sayings like 'stud muffin' or 'go get 'em, tiger!' on them.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't let my son wear something like that. Can you say 'Jon Benet?' The whole thing is just creepy.
Sometimes the best defense is a kick to the groin.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 79. Missing the Point
| | | | by fish500 | | | | at Thu 23 May 6:41am | score of 2 astute | | | | | | |
They aren't selling controversial underpants they're selling controversy.
Hasn't anyone thought that A&F knew exactly what kind of backlash this would create and went ahead with it anyway. Like them or not they sure are getting a ton of press.
"It's all right, it's ok. There's something to live for" - Uncle Bill
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 107. baby wear
| | | | by mrradon | | | | at Thu 23 May 1:07pm | score of 2 funny | | | | | | |
Look, if they're going to begin the baby swimsuit line, they have to start slow. Gradually making thongs and bikinis for younger and younger ages is probably the best way to do it. If they just suddenly came out with thongs for toddlers all at once, it would probably promote much more outrage. This way, they can introduce the lines once people become accustomed to them, with less public furor.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 108. Simply Shocking! *Gasp*
| | | | by originalantiprincess | | | | at Thu 23 May 1:41pm | score of 3 informative | | | | | | |
I don't understand what the big fuss is about. Old Navy sells underwear/bra sets that have the words "Naughty" on the bra, "Nice" on the panties. Why are people making such a big deal out of AF doing it? We know that A & F will do anything to sell stuff. (see the catalog) The way I see it, you don't like em, you don't buy em. Why must overprotective parents complicate it?
Suppose conventional wisdom to be a tree. I am chainsaw. You are squirrels.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 113. A and how do you know...
| | | | by fishist | | | | at Thu 23 May 4:47pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
...one of the five is wearing thong underware? I know peers talk to peers about this but I just assume everyone on Plastic is an adult or near enough. So here's my question, how do these kids feel about you asking what kind of underware they wear. That isn't humor or sarcasm, it's more shocked curiosity.
Reward good behavior. Punish poor behavior
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | Member Login | | | |
| Kids: This Is Not Rock N Roll
|
|
|
| (Tue 27 Jul 6:49am) | -----=----o |
The Who once finished a set after their drummer OD'd on stage from horse tranquilizers. David Bowie once finished a show after getting a lollipop jammed into his eye socket. In colossally wussified contrast, The Kings Of Leon just cancelled a show because a bird pooped on them. (Hell, g.g. allin would poop on himself. Sissies.) - n29_w95 |
| Stayin' Alive
|
|
|
| (Sun 25 Jul 9:54am) | -----=----o |
Dramatic video of a Canadian F-18 pilot ejecting moments before his plane crashes while preparing for an air show. He survived with minor injuries. PS turn up the volume and listen to the background music just before he punches out. - Petronius |
|
