Bikini Tops for Pre-Teens Removed

---

Update (March 25, 2011)
Here we go again:

• "Abercrombie & Fitch Sparks Outcry With Padded Bikini Tops for 8-Year-Olds"
  FoxNews.com (March 25, 2011)
• "Abercrombie & Fitch selling padded bikini tops for young girls"
  The Mommy Files, blog, SFGate, San Francisco Chronicle (March 24, 2011)
• "Selling push-up bikinis to girls, age 7: Is it too young?"
  Tralee Pearce, Globe and Mail Blog, The Globe and Mail (March 23, 2011)

---

That story of a cross-dressing fashion show in a New Jersey elementary school isn't true, apparently. This SNAFU wasn't, apparently, a "misunderstanding." Not the same way, at least.

"Primark 'takes note of concern' and withdraws bikini top for pre-teens"
The Irish Times (April 15, 2010)

"Primark in the UK has withdrawn padded bikini tops aimed at pre-pubescent girls from the shelves of its stores after children's rights groups condemned the retailer for promoting the early sexualisation of children.

"The company, which trades in the Republic under the Penneys name, apologised for any offence caused by the product and said all profits from the bikinis already sold would go to a children's charity.

" 'Primark has taken note of the concern regarding the sale of certain bikini tops for girls, a product line that sells in relatively small quantities,' a spokesman said.

" 'The company has stopped the sale of this product line with immediate effect.'

"The British-based Phoenix Chief Advocates, which helps victims of paedophiles, had yesterday called for a boycott of Primark until the bikini top was withdrawn...."

(from the Sun, via FOXNews, used w/o permission)

By All that is Sane, What was Primark Thinking?

The odds are pretty good that Primark had this line of hot numbers for pre-teen girls in planning and production phases before - or at least while - another 'Pedophile Priest!' scandal was breaking in Ireland. Until the Irish meltdown went public, I suppose that Primark executives might have felt that priests behaving badly was something that only happened in America - and that 'those dirty priests' weren't interested in girls, anyway.

Also, that only nasty Catholic priests did bad things to children.

I'd like to give Primark's leaders credit for having more sense than that.

On the other hand, there are those padded bikini tops.

What were they thinking?

Primark Has Company: Lots of Company

I've lived in America all my life. The sort of - fashion? - described in this article is fairly familiar to me.

"Popular U.K. discount retailer Primark has pulled a line of sexy padded bikinis from its shelves after complaints from child protection agencies and criticism from a tabloid newspaper.

"The bathing suits had enough padding in the halter top to make girls as young as 7-years-old look like they had breasts....

"...The Sun newspaper ran a front page story Wednesday criticizing the suits. Soon after, child protection agencies started making calls to the retailer, saying the swimwear encouraged sexualization of children.

"Dr. Keith Ablow,...psychiatrist, said he thinks that sexy clothing like these bathing suits can be dangerous to young girls.

" 'It can be psychologically damaging to encourage girls at age 7 or close to that age to consider themselves as sexually attractive to boys or men,'...

"...'Much more often now, we encourage these girls to be young adults and it is confusing to people who have abnormal feelings towards children,' Ablow said....

"...'Families are routinely buying clothing with provocative wording on the back of sweat suits where "juicy" appears on a girl's backside at age 9 or 10, or the words "pink" appear near a secondary sexual characteristic at age 9 or 10,' Ablow said...."
(FOXNews)

I'll admit to a bias: I think women are people. I think young girls are people, too. Yes, human beings are sexual creatures: but that's not all we are. (see Article 6, "Catechism of the Catholic Church")

These flirtatious clothes for red-hot Lolitas? I prefer to believe that their parents or guardians are perfectly nice, clueless people who somehow made it well into adulthood without learning about human sexuality.

And no: I don't blame the little girls with "JUICY" on their rumps. They're kids: and shouldn't have the burden of protecting themselves against sexual predators and clueless parents.

Finally, I'll admit that some of those 'ain't I hot?' kiddie fashions are the work of competent - even talented - designers. I'd prefer, though, that those skills and talents be used in other ways.

Presenting Little Girls as Sex Objects: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Maybe Americans think that sexual predators only go after young boys. Those pedophile priests we hear and read so much about didn't seem much interested in girls.

In Europe, it's another story - and another topic.

The sad fact is, little girls seem to be about as vulnerable to predators as little boys. (July 25, 2009)

I think it's time for parents and guardians to re-think the wisdom of getting hot, sexy clothing for their kids. It'd be nice if manufacturers and retailers stopped pushing the stuff, too.

Sort-of related posts:

• "Cross-Dressing Fashion Show? Oops. Never Mind"
  (April 16, 2010)
• "Priests Behaving Badly, Ephebophilia, and Statistics"
  (March 25, 2010)
• "Are You a Boy, or Are You a Girl?"
  (September 26, 2009)
• "Modesty: Living in Balance"
  (August 16, 2009)

In the News:

• "Primark 'takes note of concern' and withdraws bikini top for pre-teens"
  The Irish Times (April 15, 2010)
• "FOXNews">Department Store Pulls Padded Bikini Bras for Kids"
  FOXNews (April 14, 2010)

---

¹ A longer excerpt:

"Popular U.K. discount retailer Primark has pulled a line of sexy padded bikinis from its shelves after complaints from child protection agencies and criticism from a tabloid newspaper.

"The bathing suits had enough padding in the halter top to make girls as young as 7-years-old look like they had breasts. They came in both black and white
polka dot, and hot pink with gold stars.

"The Sun newspaper ran a front page story Wednesday criticizing the suits. Soon after, child protection agencies started making calls to the retailer, saying the swimwear encouraged sexualization of children.

"Dr. Keith Ablow, ...psychiatrist, said he thinks that sexy clothing like these bathing suits can be dangerous to young girls.

" 'It can be psychologically damaging to encourage girls at age 7 or close to that age to consider themselves as sexually attractive to boys or men,'...

"...Even though Ablow said he thinks the retail giant did the right thing by discontinuing the swim line, he said it is just the tip of the iceberg.

"'This is just a symptom of a much larger problem. You could walk through any department store in the U.S. and find many objectionable items for similar reasons,' Ablow said. 'Retailers have not taken responsibility, nor parents, to choose more wisely what young girls wear.'

"Primark was accused by the media for encouraging pedophilia by giving little girls the appearance of a woman's' figure.

" 'Much more often now, we encourage these girls to be young adults and it is confusing to people who have abnormal feelings towards children,' Ablow said. 'A mini version of designer jeans and a halter top for children creates a confusing scenario not only for little girls, but for adolescent and older males.'

"Ablow said he thinks clothes for young girls are becoming more sexually suggestive not only in style and cut, but in even more obvious ways.

" 'Families are routinely buying clothing with provocative wording on the back of sweat suits where "juicy" appears on a girl's backside at age 9 or 10, or the words "pink" appear near a secondary sexual characteristic at age 9 or 10,' Ablow said...."
(FOXNews)