This is just pathetic

September 10, 2006

Retailers peddle padded bras for girls

by Jane Metlikovec

September 09, 2006 12:00am

Article from:

BREAST-enhancing padded bras for girls as young as six are being sold in n shops.

Childhood experts have warned parents they could be baiting pedophiles by dressing their young girls as raunchy women.

Tiny matching lingerie sets of lacy bras and knickers in many children's brands including Bratz, Saddle Club and Barbie, have hit the shelves aimed at girls who are barely old enough for school.

The Herald Sun last week revealed the latest Bratz Babyz range included sexually provocative baby dolls dressed in leather and lingerie.

The padded Bratz "bralettes" were among more than 30 different junior bra styles starting at size six on sale at a city Target store visited by the Herald Sun yesterday.

The Australian Family Association warned parents against sexualising their children. "We have a growing problem with pedophilia and people viewing children as sex objects," spokeswoman Conway said.

"Children do not need these products and I am appalled. It is more than bad taste. The sexual portrayal of children in this country is illegal and these products are pandering to just that."

Australian Childhood Foundation CEO Dr Joe Tucci said padded bras were "the most ridiculous piece of clothing a parent could buy".

Bratz distributor Funtastic defended the range.

"The idea of the padding is for girls to be discreet as they develop," a spokeswoman said.

"It is more about hiding what you have got than showing it off. It is certainly not there to make children look like they have breasts."

Target also stood by the underwear range. It provided "fashionable items that give girls modesty and style as they go through development changes", a spokeswoman said.

September 11, 2006

Not that this is funny, but I couldn't help but

laugh when I read this. You're right, .

How stupid do you have to be to make padded

bras for girls that are years away from puberty?

And the person who said that the padding was

to keep things discreet must have let logic fly

right out the window.

But you know what's really pathetic? Somebody

did market research on this. The figures they

got said that the market was ready for it. Mothers

must have said that they would buy this for their

little girls because they love Barbie & Bratz dolls.

Brand names 1, common sense 0.

September 11, 2006

I have two nieces. They both listen to rap music that's sexual in nature because their crackhead father lets them. One of them thinks she's a teenager. I remember her remarking about how she needs to wear a bra because she's starting to actually grow. That got me pissed off. She's barely 8 years old. She doesn't need a bra. It's definitely going to get alot of child molesters and attention from perverts. Everything's gone to hell. Kids aren't just disrespectful, undisciplined and unsupervised. Now we have to cater to their sense of sex even though they have no idea what that means? caltrec10 <caltrec10@...> wrote: Not that this is funny, but I couldn't help butlaugh when I read this. You're right, .How stupid do you have to be to make paddedbras for girls that are years away from puberty?And the person who said that the padding wasto keep things discreet must have let logic flyright out the window.But you know what's really pathetic? Somebodydid market research on this. The figures theygot said that the market was ready for it. Mothersmust have said that they would buy this for theirlittle girls because they love Barbie & Bratz dolls.Brand names 1, common sense 0.

How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

September 11, 2006

Have you seen the bras? Here, take a look and decide for yourself.

http://www.target.com.au/abouttarget/kids/kids_underwear8_16.htm

http://www.target.com.au/abouttarget/kids/kids_underwear.htm

The outrage is just silly in my opinion. Even before a girl

develops a girl may feel embarassed about her nipples (I know I was)

and the padding is for the girl's comfort not to enhance what is not

there. Also, some girls do develop large breasts at a very young

age and I think it is good they wear something as opposed to

nothing, which I have seen at times.

Kim

>

> Retailers peddle padded bras for girls

> by Jane Metlikovec

> September 09, 2006 12:00am

> Article from: (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/?from=ni_story)

> BREAST-enhancing padded bras for girls as young as six are being

sold in

> n shops.

>

> Childhood experts have warned parents they could be baiting

pedophiles by

> dressing their young girls as raunchy women.

> Tiny matching lingerie sets of lacy bras and knickers in many

children's

> brands including Bratz, Saddle Club and Barbie, have hit the

shelves aimed at

> girls who are barely old enough for school.

> The Herald Sun last week revealed the latest Bratz Babyz range

included

> sexually provocative baby dolls dressed in leather and lingerie.

> The padded Bratz " bralettes " were among more than 30 different

junior bra

> styles starting at size six on sale at a city Target store visited

by the

> Herald Sun yesterday.

> The Australian Family Association warned parents against

sexualising their

> children. " We have a growing problem with pedophilia and people

viewing

> children as sex objects, " spokeswoman Conway said.

> " Children do not need these products and I am appalled. It is more

than bad

> taste. The sexual portrayal of children in this country is illegal

and these

> products are pandering to just that. "

> Australian Childhood Foundation CEO Dr Joe Tucci said padded bras

were " the

> most ridiculous piece of clothing a parent could buy " .

> Bratz distributor Funtastic defended the range.

> " The idea of the padding is for girls to be discreet as they

develop, " a

> spokeswoman said.

> " It is more about hiding what you have got than showing it off. It

is

> certainly not there to make children look like they have

breasts. "

> Target also stood by the underwear range. It provided " fashionable

items that

> give girls modesty and style as they go through development

changes " , a

> spokeswoman said.

>

September 11, 2006

If she hasn't begun to develop, I understand your feelings. Speaking

for myself, it sucks to begin developing and not have anything to

wear. You can't know how embarassing it is to ask your Mom to take you

shopping for a bra when she doesn't see the need. I felt it was

better to ask my daughter if she wanted a junior bra last year when

she turned 11 and she hadn't begun to show. I did a google search and

many people are just as outraged.

Kim

I remember her remarking about how she needs to wear a bra because

she's starting to actually grow. That got me pissed off. She's barely

8 years old. She doesn't need a bra.

September 11, 2006

I just wanted to add this. Look up on any health website and this is

what you'll learn about developing girls.

When should a girl's breasts start growing?

Often, girls worry when they notice that their friends' breasts are

enlarging and theirs are not. It is important to understand that there

is a lot of variation in the normal timing of breast growth. For

example, it is normal for breasts to start growing as early as nine

years of age and it is also normal if they do not do so until 14 years

of age - and anytime in between.

She's barely 8 years old. She doesn't need a bra.

September 11, 2006

I'm pretty sure I remember my dad saying he was 18 before he actually hit puberty. I was 8 when I started getting more independent and resentful of his overprotective attitude and 9 when I started puberty. I stopped growing when I was about 14 1/2. It doesn't matter when they start growing. What matters is that they aren't bullied for it. Kim <6emini@...> wrote: I just wanted to add this. Look up on any health website and this is what you'll learn about

developing girls.When should a girl's breasts start growing? Often, girls worry when they notice that their friends' breasts are enlarging and theirs are not. It is important to understand that there is a lot of variation in the normal timing of breast growth. For example, it is normal for breasts to start growing as early as nine years of age and it is also normal if they do not do so until 14 years of age - and anytime in between. She's barely 8 years old. She doesn't need a bra.

Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

September 11, 2006

My intent wasn't to start an argument between members here, but to point out what seemed to be another sign of the continuing exploitation of children. It does seem that a lot of this is aimed at girls moreso than boys. I'm wondering if this isn't because girls may be more "socially active" than boys. By that I mean they are more into fads and fashions and can be really mean to girls who don't fit in. (I also don't want an argument on the nature of girls vs. boys. I am speaking in general terms here and there will be exceptions on both sides. My reference to girls is based on observations from members on here, from my mother who has taught second grade for 20+ years and other articles and such.) My point is that it seems that toy makers are exploiting this and adding a message of triviality (meaning that the most important things in life are fashion, material goods and the latest kitschy stuff) and I hate to say, loose sexual morals.

Perhaps I should have added a little commentary to this effect with the article.

September 11, 2006

Kim wrote: " Even before a girl develops a girl may feel embarassed

about her nipples (I know I was) ... <snip> ... "

That's what camisoles are for, Kim. Camisoles are to be worn by

little girls UNDER their day clothes so they do not feel embarrassed

about their nipples and to allow for both physical and emotional

comfort.

And if a little girl is wearing a shirt or sweater that allows

others to see her nipples, either the top she is wearing is too

sheer or it is too tight! There is no reason why a little girl's

nipples should be showing through her clothing!

Kim wrote: " ... <snip> ... and the padding is for the girl's

comfort not to enhance what is not there. "

Kim, I beg to differ based on the fact that the article states that

thes are 'tiny matching lingerie sets of lacy bras and knickers in

many children's brands including Bratz, Saddle Club and Barbie.' It

is quite obvious that there is the sexualization of these 'tot bras.'

Kim wrote: " Also, some girls do develop large breasts at a very

young age and I think it is good they wear something as opposed to

nothing, which I have seen at times. "

Then let girls who develop early get REAL bras instead of these

padded tot bras. I have yet to hear of girls as young as 6 hitting

puberty, developing breasts and needing a proper bra.

I do not buy the argument that a padded bra promotes modesty and

style as a girl goes through development changes. I *do* buy that

some manufacturers and some parents want these little girls to

become WOMEN faster than is appropriate. These tot bras are no

different than the toddler slutwear line of clothing that can be

found where little ones are made to look like hoochie mommas.

OK, ask me how I really feel about this topic. :-o

Raven

September 11, 2006

Camisoles are to be worn by little girls UNDER their day clothes so

they do not feel embarrassed <snip>

I wore under shirts if I could. Many of my clothes were hand me

downs of poor quality.

<snip> There is no reason why a little girl's nipples should be

>showing through her clothing!

Your right, but it does happen.

<snip>the article states that these are 'tiny matching lingerie

>sets of lacy bras... It is quite obvious that there is the

>sexualization of these 'tot bras.'

Look at these and tell me this is sexy underwear ages 2-8.

http://www.target.com.au/abouttarget/kids/kids_underwear.htm

<snip>Then let girls who develop early get REAL bras instead of

>these padded tot bras. I have yet to hear of girls as young as 6

>hitting puberty, developing breasts and needing a proper bra.

Real bras do not fit the chest size not cup size of young girls who

are developed. These say ages 8-16, not age 6.

http://www.target.com.au/abouttarget/kids/kids_underwear8_16.htm

I believe it is up to the parent to decide what is best. If you

don't like it, don't buy it. Want to protest, don't shop at the

stores that sell these items or write a letter.

<snip>I *do* buy that some manufacturers and some parents want these

> little girls to become WOMEN faster than is appropriate. These

> tot bras are no different than the toddler slutwear line of

> clothing that can be found where little ones are made to look like

> hoochie mommas.

Manufacturers want the money and this is not the first or last thing

they'll sell that many see as inappropriate. Parents want their

girls to become WOMEN??? I do not think this is true of most

parents.

> OK, ask me how I really feel about this topic. :-o

>

> Raven

It sounds pretty obvious to me.

Kim

>

September 11, 2006

howdy,

This will be an ongoing debate, I suppose. But I think we are

steering clear of the main point.

It doesn't matter what a mom feels or does not feel is appropriate

for her daughter. A pedophile is going to look at a girl in a sexual

way regardless, and the more provocatively dressed a girl APPEARS to

a pedophile the more that girl will be a target.

It therefore behooves a parent to ensure that their sons and dughters

are dressed in ways that would NOT attract a pedophile or, if they

are going to dress their children in a maner that could be construed

as provacative, to ensure that their children are well-protected from

predators and looked out for.

Tom

Administrator

> Camisoles are to be worn by little girls UNDER their day clothes so

> they do not feel embarrassed <snip>

>

I wore under shirts if I could. Many of my clothes were hand me

downs of poor quality.

>

September 11, 2006

Most pedophiles target victims strictly from a opportunity they see

that makes it easy for them to be alone with their prey.

Bud Billiken® is considered to be the protector of children but have

you ever seen the way the girls dance at the parade that welcomes the

children back to school in Chicago. It seems to be just fine with the

networks, parents, etc. If you'd care to see what I mean watch the

last video clip in the list.

http://budbillikenparade.com/media.htm

Sexuality in the youth of our nation is all around us in every type of

media. I'll just worry about my own children and let everyone else

worry about taking care of theirs.

Kim

September 11, 2006

Most pedophiles target victims strictly from a opportunity they see

that makes it easy for them to be alone with their prey.

Bud Billiken® is considered to be the protector of children but have

you ever seen the way the girls dance at the parade that welcomes the

children back to school in Chicago. It seems to be just fine with the

networks, parents, etc. If you'd care to see what I mean watch the

last video clip in the list.

http://budbillikenparade.com/media.htm

Sexuality in the youth of our nation is all around us in every type of

media. I'll just worry about my own children and let everyone else

worry about taking care of theirs.

Kim

September 11, 2006

Without breeching confidentiality, I will just say that we had an

instance in these very forums where a young girl contacted a female

admin because she needed to talk to her about " inappropriate

touching " occuring between her and her teacher. This admin convinced

the girl to tell her father who told the police. The offender was

caught, jailed, tried, and convicted.

The girl became anorexic and nearly died. She is doing better now,

but still experiencing trauma. Sometimes problems we wold rather not

worry about become our own without us asking for it.

Tom

Administrator

Sexuality in the youth of our nation is all around us in every type of

media. I'll just worry about my own children and let everyone else

worry about taking care of theirs.

Kim

September 11, 2006

Hi all,. Tom I am in complete agreement with you. I do believe that parents are responsible to make sure their children arent dressed in a manner that would attract unwanted attention. I also believe it is a parents responsiblitie to know where their child is at all times, who they are with, what they are doing, especially on line. I don't believe there is any reason for a child under 18 to have an internet connected computer in there room I believe it should be in a public place so that parents can monitor what they are doing. I do realise there is software for this, and that children do know how to hide things, but parents have to be more aware, it is a dangerous world out there, and its our duty to protect our children. Beth, Co- Administrator environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: howdy,This will be an ongoing debate, I suppose. But I think we are steering clear of the main point. It doesn't matter what a mom feels or does not feel is appropriate for her daughter. A pedophile is going to look at a girl in a sexual way regardless, and the more provocatively dressed a girl APPEARS to a pedophile the more that girl will be a target. It therefore behooves a parent to ensure that their sons and dughters are dressed in ways that would NOT attract a pedophile or, if they are going to dress their children in a maner

that could be construed as provacative, to ensure that their children are well-protected from predators and looked out for.TomAdministrator > Camisoles are to be worn by little girls UNDER their day clothes so > they do not feel embarrassed <snip>> I wore under shirts if I could. Many of my clothes were hand me downs of poor quality. >

Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Small Business.

September 11, 2006

Kim wrote: " I'll just worry about my own children and let everyone

else worry about taking care of theirs. "

This is what the biggest problem is with society these days -- hardly

anyone cares enough anymore to help their fellow man (or woman or

child). This sort of approach only serves to isolate and further

abandon the next generation.

Raven

September 12, 2006

In a message dated 9/12/2006 9:56:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, 6emini@... writes:

It is not my place to raise my neighbors kids, teach them morals (if they learn by example, fine), or disipline them(I can tell them hitting,lying, stealing is wrong but can not impose a punishment).

It isn't really safe to discipline other's kids. You can easily land in really deep trouble doing that. Even the schools get in trouble sometimes. There are a number of parents at my mother's school who believe their kids can do no wrong. Of course, those kids are real monsters because they know their parents won't punish them for anything. Sometimes these parents will write angry letters to the school about the teachers trying to get the kids to behave. One teacher didn't come back this year because of that kind of thing. He taught the 8th grade and the kids were so bad that all but one or two failed math and other courses and were forced to repeat the grade. The parents went ballistic even though they had been warned repeatedly that this was going to happen. This was that fellow's first year teaching and he might never teach again because of the experience.

So if even the schools get in trouble, it really isn't safe for adults to say anything. I think this is even more true for men since this pedophile thing is such the rage in the news these days. A couple of weeks ago there was a young girl in the grocery with a shirt that listed theme parks on the back. I was looking at the list since she was in front of me in the check out line. I noticed the mother was giving me a close and dirty look, so I asked if they had been to all of those parks. That seemed to stun her for a moment and she stammered that they'd only been to some of them. Add to that the number of 8 to 14 year old girls I've seen running around showing more skin that a New Orleans hooker and you can see the problem. Oddly, the mothers will be walking around with their tarted up daughter like nothing is wrong with a 9 year old in a miniskirt, high platform shoes and a tube top with a high cut jacket that wouldn't have zipped up around a Smurf.

Sadly, I've seen some nice looking girls, legal age mind you, and women that have completely ruined their presentation by dressing like harlots. Had they worn a little more clothing, they'd have actually been more attractive because they wouldn't have looked like street trash.

Well, its like the guy I met on the train once who did lifeguarding in the summer, including a stint at a nude beach. He said that after looking at that all summer, the people wearing clothes looked good. We might hit that point eventually, but it could be a n grade backlash.

September 12, 2006

When I read the article the first thing I wanted to know was what

they looked like and I went from there to SEE for myself why people

got upset. I do not believe everything I read or trust other people

to tell me what is right or wrong. I could only find the type of

garment mentioned in the article being sold in Australia and so went

to the store where the manufacturer mentioned in the article sold

the garments. It upset me that nobody else seemed curious to find

out what they looked like or see them before forming an opinion. I

understand now why you posted this .

Kim

>

> My intent wasn't to start an argument between members here, but to

point out

> what seemed to be another sign of the continuing exploitation of

children.

> It does seem that a lot of this is aimed at girls moreso than

boys. I'm

> wondering if this isn't because girls may be more " socially

active " than boys. By

> that I mean they are more into fads and fashions and can be really

mean to

> girls who don't fit in. (I also don't want an argument on the

nature of girls

> vs. boys. I am speaking in general terms here and there will be

exceptions on

> both sides. My reference to girls is based on observations from

members on

> here, from my mother who has taught second grade for 20+ years

and other articles

> and such.) My point is that it seems that toy makers are

exploiting this and

> adding a message of triviality (meaning that the most important

things in

> life are fashion, material goods and the latest kitschy stuff)

and I hate to

> say, loose sexual morals.

>

> Perhaps I should have added a little commentary to this effect

with the

> article.

>

September 12, 2006