What the ***** do Primark think they are up to??

[lyonhibs]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8619329.stm

Granted the article is about them rightfully withdrawing the products from sale, but my point is this.

Which absolute berk in their Marketing/New Product development team decided that "ooohh yes, padded bras for 7 year olds, that's an acceptable product and will meet with great success"

It points to a worrying theme in advertising/clothing in general that seems to promote the - extremely - premature "adultisation" of young kids, especially girls.

Not saying these 2 are strongly empirically linked, but is it any surprise that we have a rising teenage pregancy rate with kids being exposed to this type of "grown up" (I'd go as far - in this instance - to say "sexualised") products?

It's a relatively recent phenomenem as well - why can't big business leave kids alone to be kids - play with dolls/football/the so called "simple things"??

I know toys/technology have advanced massively since even I was a bairn, but I think major companies have a corporate responsibilty to aim responsible products at kids.

Opinions anyone - I'm just been a reactionary prude?? :dunno:

[HibsMax]

I understand what you're saying but there is a subtle difference between a bra and a bikini. Regardless, young girls shouldn't be concerned with how big their chests look and products such as these only add fuel to the fire e.g., "Oooh, Mummy, I don't want this swimming costume, I want THIS one!" (because it makes her look more like a woman).

It's interesting how nobody complains about girls playing with dolls since having a baby is definitely an adult thing. Could it not be argued that girls playing with dolls at a young age conditions them for motherhood? Probably not. I played with Action Man and I never went anywhere near the army.

[steakbake]

I think that Primark might feel they are responding to a demand somehow.

There's many things out there which are ridiculous when you think about how young the kids are. For example, children or even babies with earrings - WTF is that about? Rings? Necklaces? Why does a child need jewelry or accessories anything like that?

Then you get on to things like chocolate ciggies, transfer tattoos etc etc.

We rush to grow kids up and it's not the fault of big business. Sometimes the parents need to have a long hard look at themselves.

[HibsMax]

I think that Primark might feel they are responding to a demand somehow.

There's many things out there which are ridiculous when you think about how young the kids are. For example, babies or even children with earrings - WTF is that about? Rings? Necklaces? Why does a child need jewelry or accessories anything like that?

Then you get on to things like chocolate ciggies, transfer tattoos etc etc.

We rush to grow kids up and it's not the fault of big business. Sometimes the parents need to have a long hard look at themselves.
That's a great point. Manufacturers are in business to make money. They typically try and stay clear of ideas that won't generate any revenue. But at the end of the day it's up to the parents to decide what their kids wear / don't wear. I'm sure that there is at least one parent out there that has modified a bikini in response to their daughter's request.

[hibsbollah]

I think that Primark might feel they are responding to a demand somehow.



:agree:
Thats the issue.

On one hand our society tells us that paedophiles are the personification of devil on earth, and on the other it promotes the mass sexualisation of our children. As a father of two girls myself I cant understand how the Playboy logo (for example) became an acceptable thing for little girls to wear, or why Bratz dolls have two poses; seductress or tramp.

[Beefster]

Why blame Primark when some idiot parents are obviously buying this toot for their kids?

[lyonhibs]

I think that Primark might feel they are responding to a demand somehow.

There's many things out there which are ridiculous when you think about how young the kids are. For example, babies or even children with earrings - WTF is that about? Rings? Necklaces? Why does a child need jewelry or accessories anything like that?

Then you get on to things like chocolate ciggies, transfer tattoos etc etc.

We rush to grow kids up and it's not the fault of big business. Sometimes the parents need to have a long hard look at themselves.

Yeh, you're right - upon reflection, whilst I don't think Primark are entirely blameless in this instance, there are many facets in which "we" (society I mean) push grown up products/accessories onto wee kids.

Big business are accessories to this, and I'd like to think those daftie parents who think it's healthy to plaster their kids in the above products will snap out of it if more retailers were to be pressuried into removing such products from sale as Primark were.

Although I guess the fundamental point remains.

If there was no demand, there would be no supply, and those generating the demand want to give themselves a shake.

[hibsbollah]

Why blame Primark when some idiot parents are obviously buying this toot for their kids?

Because kids always demand from their parents whatever toy companies/clothes outfitters are currently aggressively marketing. Its not all about demand (and I accept parents have a role in creating demand) its also about responsible supply.

[Beefster]

Because kids always demand from their parents whatever toy companies/clothes outfitters are currently aggressively marketing. Its not all about demand (and I accept parents have a role in creating demand) its also about responsible supply.

Course the kids will demand stuff - it's what kids do and I don't remember anything different in the 70's or 80's. Parents can say no to nonsense like this.

It's too easy nowadays for parents to blame social workers, police, fast food outlets, teachers, retailers, the internet etc for all their kids' woes these days. As Russell Howard says about parents blaming fast food adverts for their kids demanding fast food (and therefore taking no responsibility themselves) - "Ban the adverts, no, ban your fanny until you can look after a 2 year old".

[Mon Dieu4]

Course the kids will demand stuff - it's what kids do and I don't remember anything different in the 70's or 80's. Parents can say no to nonsense like this.

It's too easy nowadays for parents to blame social workers, police, fast food outlets, teachers, retailers, the internet etc for all their kids' woes these days. As Russell Howard says about parents blaming fast food adverts for their kids demanding fast food (and therefore taking no responsibility themselves) - "Ban the adverts, no, ban your fanny until you can look after a 2 year old".

:faf::faf::faf::top marks

[lyonhibs]

Because kids always demand from their parents whatever toy companies/clothes outfitters are currently aggressively marketing. Its not all about demand (and I accept parents have a role in creating demand) its also about responsible supply.

:agree: :agree:

Kids have very malleable minds and are very susceptible to advertising - they haven't formed a concrete opinion of everything yet, and companies know this, especially if they maket their product as something "new" and "cool"

If someone tried to launch a range of - I don't know - detachable fake animal tails to wear about town aimed at 18-25 year olds, they'd bomb, as almost everyone would go "what a load of *****e", but I imagine the idea of jewellery/a bikini/chocolate cigarettes might seem pretty cool to an impressionable bairn.

They're not thinking of the possible long-term implications.

Granted, parents should be able to resist "pester power" for this type of product, but the supply side does have a role to play, even if it is not as important as the demand side.

[hibsbollah]

Course the kids will demand stuff - it's what kids do and I don't remember anything different in the 70's or 80's. Parents can say no to nonsense like this.

It's too easy nowadays for parents to blame social workers, police, fast food outlets, teachers, retailers, the internet etc for all their kids' woes these days. As Russell Howard says about parents blaming fast food adverts for their kids demanding fast food (and therefore taking no responsibility themselves) - "Ban the adverts, no, ban your fanny until you can look after a 2 year old".

Are you saying that Primark has no responsibility for what it sells?

[heretoday]

Only those of low intelligence would allow their kids to wear such demeaning gear. Unfortunately there are a lot of them about!

[Beefster]

Are you saying that Primark has no responsibility for what it sells?

Nope, the padded bikini was a tacky and tactless thing to sell but that's Primark for you.

[EH6 Hibby]

:agree:
Thats the issue.

On one hand our society tells us that paedophiles are the personification of devil on earth, and on the other it promotes the mass sexualisation of our children. As a father of two girls myself I cant understand how the Playboy logo (for example) became an acceptable thing for little girls to wear, or why Bratz dolls have two poses; seductress or tramp.

Totally agree, I regularly see young girls and I mean under 10 here wearing high heels which I can only imagine must be damaging their ankles and feet while they are still growing. Last week I saw a girl that looked to be about 7 wearing a Playboy tracksuit which had Playboy written in sequins across the bum, who in their right minds designs this stuff? Why would they design stuff to draw attention to a childs bum? It's outrageous, when I was younger my mum would have given me a thick ear if I even suggested wearing something like that, all I can say is I'm glad I have a son and I don't have to worry as much about these things! :shocked:

[RyeSloan]

:agree:
Thats the issue.

On one hand our society tells us that paedophiles are the personification of devil on earth, and on the other it promotes the mass sexualisation of our children. As a father of two girls myself I cant understand how the Playboy logo (for example) became an acceptable thing for little girls to wear, or why Bratz dolls have two poses; seductress or tramp.

This one aways makes me boke. I really don't understand how they managed this...marketing a logo synonymous with pornography to young girls and getting it into major stores without even a hint of a backlash must have taken some doing. Quite what the parents are thinking when they buy this stuff for their kids God only knows.

[hibsdaft]

smack dealers, hitmen and child-traffickers are responding to demand too. since when did that have any bearing on morality?



Asda has been singled out for a push-up bra aimed at young girls, and Tesco withdrew a pole-dancing kit from its toys section.

Last year WHSmith also withdrew its Playboy stationery, but did not say if that was because the products were sold to children.

:sick:

[HibsMax]

Just out of curiosity, did Primark aggressively advertise their line of padded bras to children? I mean, I know kids are susceptible to ad campaigns but I have a hard time believing Primark would be advertising padded bikinis in adverts during cartoons. Does that make sense?

[Leicester Fan]

:agree:
Thats the issue.

On one hand our society tells us that paedophiles are the personification of devil on earth, and on the other it promotes the mass sexualisation of our children. As a father of two girls myself I cant understand how the Playboy logo (for example) became an acceptable thing for little girls to wear, or why Bratz dolls have two poses; seductress or tramp.

I have 3 girls and I totally agree with you.

[AgentDaleCooper]

you can't lump all the blame on parents, primark or society - there's a whole host of contributing factors to the problem.

this thread is about primark and their recent contribution - i think it's morally bankrupt and pretty disgusting.

[JE89]

Just out of curiosity, did Primark aggressively advertise their line of padded bras to children? I mean, I know kids are susceptible to ad campaigns but I have a hard time believing Primark would be advertising padded bikinis in adverts during cartoons. Does that make sense?

Yep. The Chavy parents buying this crap for their kids need a slap. Probably just gutted these products weren't around when they were younger :bitchy: Neds.

[Speedy]

Why blame Primark when some idiot parents are obviously buying this toot for their kids?

:agree:


Because kids always demand from their parents whatever toy companies/clothes outfitters are currently aggressively marketing. Its not all about demand (and I accept parents have a role in creating demand) its also about responsible supply.


Totally agree, I regularly see young girls and I mean under 10 here wearing high heels which I can only imagine must be damaging their ankles and feet while they are still growing. Last week I saw a girl that looked to be about 7 wearing a Playboy tracksuit which had Playboy written in sequins across the bum, who in their right minds designs this stuff? Why would they design stuff to draw attention to a childs bum? It's outrageous, when I was younger my mum would have given me a thick ear if I even suggested wearing something like that, all I can say is I'm glad I have a son and I don't have to worry as much about these things! :shocked:

[IndieHibby]

In the past, people would live in smaller communities and would know each other well enough to pass comment on such matters.

The 'norms' were enforced by parents who knew that the majority supported their view when they bore witness to things which 'aren't right'.

This seems to have evaporated in the hustle of a massive increase in social mobility (compare how well neighbours know each other compared to the past) and family breakdown (initially in the structural sense but more so latterly with the wave of divorce that has swept western democracy)

So unless a system of enforcing of 'accepted norms' replaces whatever we call what used to happen in the past (community cohesion?), this kind of thing will continue and expand, imo.


I doubt, however, that this would happen, as it would require the re-establishment of a past-notion of acceptance of authority. Many of the parents I deal with - well, the ones who require assistance in making better decisions about their children , at least - are quick and aggressive in responding to perceived or real (constructive) criticism.

Can anyone suggest an authority figure for parents which would actually be influential?

NB - there should be laws against the 'sexualisation of products aimed at children' - Isn't that a Tory manifesto pledge? :devil:

[hibsbollah]

In the past, people would live in smaller communities and would know each other well enough to pass comment on such matters.

The 'norms' were enforced by parents who knew that the majority supported their view when they bore witness to things which 'aren't right'.

This seems to have evaporated in the hustle of a massive increase in social mobility (compare how well neighbours know each other compared to the past) and family breakdown (initially in the structural sense but more so latterly with the wave of divorce that has swept western democracy)

So unless a system of enforcing of 'accepted norms' replaces whatever we call what used to happen in the past (community cohesion?), this kind of thing will continue and expand, imo.


I doubt, however, that this would happen, as it would require the re-establishment of a past-notion of acceptance of authority. Many of the parents I deal with - well, the ones who require assistance in making better decisions about their children , at least - are quick and aggressive in responding to perceived or real (constructive) criticism.



Excellent analysis:agree: I'd add though, that other countries like Germany and Scandinavian countries have also experienced 'a wave of divorce' in recent years but dont seem to have our problem with society and community breaking down.

Maybe you've become a social democrat?:devil:

[Steve-O]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2933105/High-Street-stores-are-selling-sexually-provocative-clothes-for-children.html

Looks like it's not just Primark according to this completely rational story in the Sun.

I'm fairly certain that a paedophile is a paedophile regardless of whether the victim is wearing a padded bra!!!

[Dinkydoo]

Disgusting.

All parties involved should be ***** ashamed of themselves - the parents buying, manufacturers producing and the shops that sell are all to blame.

Children wearing make up is bad enough but padded bras and bikinis for kids is beyond sick.

You'd might as well take your child out on the lash with you as well then eh...

[IndieHibby]

Excellent analysis:agree: I'd add though, that other countries like Germany and Scandinavian countries have also experienced 'a wave of divorce' in recent years but dont seem to have our problem with society and community breaking down.

Maybe you've become a social democrat?:devil:

lol! Perhaps, though I doubt it, on some issues at least...

I would suggest that those countries you mention have a more significant community structure which enforces norms better.

The comparison between the south east and Ireland or rural, semi-rural or sububrban Scotland is quite distinct in this regard.

I'm very keen on people becoming more involved in their community, so if that makes me a social demo-thingamajig, then so be it. Just don't expect me to talk to the commies at their dinner parties!

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'm a just surprised that it's taken this long for the controversy to happen. Shops have been selling sexy, adult, clothing for girls for years. Were M&S not marketing a thong a few years back? And, I don't know who it was that sold the t-shirt with "sexy bitch" written on it, that a seven year old was wearing.

Why has this blown up now?

[steakbake]

I'm a just surprised that it's taken this long for the controversy to happen. Shops have been selling sexy, adult, clothing for girls for years. Were M&S not marketing a thong a few years back? And, I don't know who it was that sold the t-shirt with "sexy bitch" written on it, that a seven year old was wearing.

Why has this blown up now?

Why sir, haven't you heard?

We are the silent majority and we demand to be outraged at the whim of the media.:grr:

I suppose you're part of the jackbooted liberal elite conspiracy which wants to get in our way...?

I suppose the leftists probably want kids to wear bikinis because it will create work for those social workers who are at the powerbase of the nanny state...

It wouldn't have happened if you know who had won the war...

[--------]

Why sir, haven't you heard?

We are the silent majority and we demand to be outraged at the whim of the media.:grr:

I suppose you're part of the jackbooted liberal elite conspiracy which wants to get in our way...?

I suppose the leftists probably want kids to wear bikinis because it will create work for those social workers who are at the powerbase of the nanny state...

It wouldn't have happened if you know who had won the war...


There is good and convincing evidence that "you know who" was a coprophiliac who had sex with his own niece.... :rolleyes:

[Peevemor]

There is good and convincing evidence that "you know who" was a coprophiliac who had sex with his own niece.... :rolleyes:

What a load of crap!

[Phil D. Rolls]

Why sir, haven't you heard?

We are the silent majority and we demand to be outraged at the whim of the media.:grr:

I suppose you're part of the jackbooted liberal elite conspiracy which wants to get in our way...?

I suppose the leftists probably want kids to wear bikinis because it will create work for those social workers who are at the powerbase of the nanny state...

It wouldn't have happened if you know who had won the war...

Are you saying the numpties that foam at the mouth whenever a paedophile is named by the press, are the same people who would object to being forced to by inappropriate lingerie from a high street store?

I think you know who did win the war. It looks like people have been robbed of their right to chose to blame someone else and are being forced to buy their kids clothes at gunpoint.

How long until the great British people descend into a nation of jackbooted thugs shouting "immigrants out" etc

I certainly will not let this reactionary claque prevent my enjoyment of good wholesome British bargains from solid British firms like Primark and Ryanair. But if any of them comes near my girls!!!!!! (time, castration, good night's sleep, etc)

[--------]

What a load of crap!


As you say, Peevemor. :devil:


Monotesticularity has a lot to answer for.... :rolleyes:

[Peevemor]

As you say, Peevemor. :devil:


Monotesticularity has a lot to answer for.... :rolleyes:

:tsk tsk: The other was there, but very small.

Apparently. :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

:tsk tsk: The other was there, but very small.

Apparently. :greengrin

I thought it was in the Albert Hall? Bloody monarchist reactionaries rewriting history to reflect the hedgemony of the new post Blairist-Brownist-Hoonist claque. No doubt they'll be saying we can't call gay people Queens anymore.

It's the new PC gone mad!

[--------]

:tsk tsk: The other was there, but very small.

Apparently. :greengrin


:agree: Wee Heini was, if I understand the song correctly, similarly endowed to his Fuehrer, while Goebbels was entirely bereft in the family jewellery department.

Which means Magda must have been sampling the stormtroopers.... :rolleyes:


And yes, according to the best texts, the other was indeed in the Albert Hall, FR. :agree:

[Peevemor]

There is good and convincing evidence that "you know who" was a coprophiliac who had sex with his own niece.... :rolleyes:


I thought it was in the Albert Hall? Bloody monarchist reactionaries rewriting history to reflect the hedgemony of the new post Blairist-Brownist-Hoonist claque. No doubt they'll be saying we can't call gay people Queens anymore.

It's the new PC gone mad!

:hmmm:

[Phil D. Rolls]

:agree: :agree:

Kids have very malleable minds and are very susceptible to advertising - they haven't formed a concrete opinion of everything yet, and companies know this, especially if they maket their product as something "new" and "cool"

If someone tried to launch a range of - I don't know - detachable fake animal tails to wear about town aimed at 18-25 year olds, they'd bomb, as almost everyone would go "what a load of *****e", but I imagine the idea of jewellery/a bikini/chocolate cigarettes might seem pretty cool to an impressionable bairn.

They're not thinking of the possible long-term implications.

Granted, parents should be able to resist "pester power" for this type of product, but the supply side does have a role to play, even if it is not as important as the demand side.

I can think of at least one person in the 47-49 age group who would see these as a must have! Perhaps you should revisit your market research.:greengrin

[Ritchie]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8619329.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8619329.stm)

Granted the article is about them rightfully withdrawing the products from sale, but my point is this.

Which absolute berk in their Marketing/New Product development team decided that "ooohh yes, padded bras for 7 year olds, that's an acceptable product and will meet with great success"

It points to a worrying theme in advertising/clothing in general that seems to promote the - extremely - premature "adultisation" of young kids, especially girls.

Not saying these 2 are strongly empirically linked, but is it any surprise that we have a rising teenage pregancy rate with kids being exposed to this type of "grown up" (I'd go as far - in this instance - to say "sexualised") products?

It's a relatively recent phenomenem as well - why can't big business leave kids alone to be kids - play with dolls/football/the so called "simple things"??

I know toys/technology have advanced massively since even I was a bairn, but I think major companies have a corporate responsibilty to aim responsible products at kids.

Opinions anyone - I'm just been a reactionary prude?? :dunno:

:faf::faf:

i can actually imagine you saying that in anger tarquin!!

[Phil D. Rolls]

Something that has just sprung to mind here. Is it possible that Primark were really aiming the product at petite women? I know a lot of smaller women but clothes from the children's range.

At the end of the day, Primark aren't responsible for what people buy their children.

[hibsbollah]

Is it possible that Primark were really aiming the product at petite women?

No.

[Phil D. Rolls]

No.

Fair enough, I still blame the parents who would buy these things for a kid though.