"Nothing needs to be on my child's rear end. It doesn't need to have any words at all," says Suzie DeWitt of Tacoma, a mother to two daughters. You wanna know what else DeWitt doesn't want on her girls' asses? Low-rise pants. "The pants rise on little girl pants are too low to be practical. Kids run, jump and hang on monkey bars. With these fashions, their bottom is hanging out at recess." Wanna know how old DeWitt's daughters are? Six and eight. We've said it before and we'll say it again: slutty dressing is skewing younger and younger, with kids just out of kindergarten wearing everything to platforms to spaghetti straps. Recall how the beauty industry is targeting the younguns also? Same deal applies to fashion: Things that have typically been aimed at teens are just being shrunk, literally, and marketed at the kids that teens are probably baby-sitting.
"It's opening up a whole can of worms for pedophiles and people who want them to look older...Too many parents believe their daughters need to be making some sort of fashion statement at ages 6 or 7," says mom Gina Vardon. "It almost seems to have become a contest between these women to see who can spend the most money on their children."
Dear women: a child is a human being, not an accessory. The death of the It Bag should not be followed by the rise of the It Kid. As adults are dressing younger and younger, are kids forced to look older to compensate? Where have all the grown-ups gone? Besides the problems of 1) dressing a grade-schooler like a whore and 2) using a grade-schooler as a status symbol is the problem, as yet another mother points out, that "not only are the values and bodies of our young girls being exploited by these fashions, but what kind of effect is this having on our boys?" Exactly — if young girls (or rather, their parents) are objectifying themselves through the clothes they purchase and wear, can we blame men for doing the same to them, too?
Sexy At 7? [Tacoma News Tribune]