Also, I am not Welsh, though I do have some Welsh ancestry (my paternal grandfather's first name was Lloyd). My Username was inspired by the songs "Rhayader" and "Rhayader Goes to Town" on the Camel album "The Snow Goose". Awesome band if you're into 70's era Prog Rock, you should check out their early albums.

As a side note, while minors are a different story, it's high time we stop legislating substances to such an absurd degree.

[www.prettysinful.com]

There's more to economics, marketing, and culture than simple "buy or don't." It's not like it's a game where everything outside of purchase power is cheating. It would be especially ironic to have a system where companies are permitted to use whatever legal draws they like to sell their products and consumers weren't allowed to use the legal means at their disposal to respond to it.

BTW, are you Welsh? Never made it down to Rhayader, but it looks awfully pretty.

However, not everybody considers both worthy of complaint. So people aren't being slackers, they're just not seeing it the way you do.

And while we're at it, who are you to tell me that she can't smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol at 10yo? That's my parental decision. l3lueSunScar, will you help me start a grassroots effort to remove these laws and allow me to vote with my dollar?

I have, however, noticed a growing pervasive trend of expecting "programs" or "policies" to fix what we consider to be the evils of the world. And I am not talking about actively pursuing the creation and implementation of such policies, but just complaining that they do not exist. To me it is a diseased attitude and, as Pirsig points out, takes for granted the valid processes and decisions needed to lay the groundwork for such programs. In my opinion, that's the whole thing. Once people have examined an issue intelligently and put time and effort into it, things like legislation are merely formalities.

In other words, if we decide collectively that "sexy" child's clothing is a bad thing (or to use Pirsig's terminology, has "low quality"), it will cease to exist.

Back atcha. :)

Aren't we all basically saying that we've improved our own hearts/protected our own children, so now it's time to work outward?

still no resolution...!

If you personally do not agree with the practice, your decision should be simple: don't buy anything from them.

For the record, I'm not claiming it's wrong to be offended by the product listing or to seek a change with that or anything else. My main point is that our time is best spent wrestling with problems over which we have some influence.

I keep jabbering on about Pirsig, so I may as well quote him: "I think if we are going to reform the world, and make it a better place to live in, the way to do it is not with talk about relationships of a political nature, which are inevitably dualistic, full of subjects and objects and their relationship to one another; or with programs full of things for other people to do. I think that kind of approach starts it at the end and presumes the end is the beginning. Programs of a political nature are the important end products of social quality that can be effective only if the underlying structure of social values is right. The place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and hands, and then work outward from there. Other people can talk about how to expand the destiny of mankind. I just want to talk about how to fix a motorcycle. I think that what I have to say has more lasting value."

(From 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance')

@tc4b: That is great that you are activily trying to make a difference and controling the influences that your children are subjected to, that is where we have to start. My parents always explained why they didn't want my brothers and I to do things, instead of just saying no you can't. I think that helped us understand and gave us a chance to make better decisions in life.

That said, I do agree that it is largely the role of parents to protect their children and to not expect money-grubbing companies to have their children's best interests at heart. Undoubtedly, trying to change our collective cultural to protect your children is infinitely less effective than focusing on your own child but that doesn't mean we should except this over-sexualization just because we can't affect it.

I agree that the action of an individual is unlikely to effect change if everybody else disagrees with that individual, but, as you note, often that's not the case, and it's certainly not the case here. It's much more common that several individuals have been moved to write because of a cultural current, again, as here. Since such actions almost never take place in total isolation, to say that they don't work if they're in total isolation doesn't really get us anywhere. However, the remain the actions of individuals, even when they aggregate into sufficient response to change the behavior of a larger entity.

I do think that when we're talking about the sexualization of children there's too much cultural reward for it across a lot of different culture clusters for an opposition to achieve anything like genuine eradication. However, there's a fair amount of evidence to suggest that curbing expression of something deemed culturally noxious can reduce people's exposure to it and their chance of being affected by it. Cultural use isn't a yes/no binary, and "spheres of life" aren't simply our meatspace habitats.

@l3lueSunScar: Agreed. Sex is everywhere. It sells. You don't like it? Don't buy it!

I don't think the world was a worse place off because some company decided to use the word "sexy" to describe a product they are selling to children.

Further, my apathy and passivity is my business, as your opinions to what is disgusting or not is yours, so why are you getting into other people's and company's business by complaining what they can or can't use to advertise THEIR products?

I will not argue that to me, using the word "sexy" to describe children's clothing is in bad taste. However, the word itself has lost its original meaning, as is the case with most adjectives in the English language. One could easily argue that the term "sexy" is the new "cute" or "hot". These term are used by teens and tweens openly and with out regard to their original meaning. They are not selling this item to adults who interpret the meaning of this word in a completely different manner then to those that this add targets, ie teens.

Does anyone here have a degree in marketing? Does anyone here actually believe that the lexicon that modern teens use contains all the same meanings to them as it does to us? Those who are in marketing are acutely aware that the meanings a very different.

This same argument could be used by your parents, parents, who more that likely view the term "sexy" when describing a clothing line in a vastly different manner then we do.

This is another case of political correctness gone wrong. Just because YOU find something offensive does not mean that the target does or should.

Also to those who have made comments stating that the sexual awareness of modern teens is in direct correlation to the entertainment cultures and the advertising companies that play off of them. This is complete nonsense. Sexual awareness is built into this age group genetically. It is in fact the local cultures and social norms that dictate whether this awareness is suppressed or embraced.

Also, am I the only one who has a problem with pre-teen girls walking around with "JUICY" in big letters right across their ass?

There's nothing wrong with giving a shit if the "giving" was applied equally and for real purpose. Like I mentioned before, there are a lot of things 1000x WORSE that are MORE easily accessible on the internet and 1000x more harmful to children, so why don't you go give a shit about that instead of giving a shit about something so harmless by comparison?

I admire the fact that you or anyone else that has a problem with this one word want to appear that they give a shit, but that seriously is all it is...appearance. All the people who talk about trying to change the culture and complain about this little word on this product, it's all LIP-SERVICE to make it APPEAR like they are campaigning against immorality, but when you take a step back and look at the big picture, it's like killing a tree by picking off each leaf one-by-one instead of hacking at the tree trunk. When you look at it from such a narrow point of view, you see the leaves coming off and think you are accomplishing something while the tree is just there laughing its ass off at you.

I disagree. People have successfully "fought the culture" many times -- the one that leaps to mind is women saying, "Hey, I shouldn't get my ass pinched in the workplace." The prevailing culture said, "Get over it, boys will be boys," but efforts over time prevailed and that attitude is no longer acceptable. Or think of other times people fought for rights, or acceptance, or equal treatment -- or for racial slurs to become unacceptable. Or whatever. I think particularly when a form of culture is destructive and degrading, it CAN be fought.

"What I'm saying is that addressing the problem at the level of one's personal relationship with one's own child is always more effective than trying to launch some crusade against the advertising industry."

I agree, to a point -- but if one has one's own house in order, I think one has a responsibility to try to attack the larger cultural issues. You CAN'T raise your child in a vacuum, and these things will impact your child no matter how awesome a parent you are.

"Not criticizing your parenting at all, so I hope my tone doesn't seem to imply that."

No worries. And technically I'm not a parent until May. :) I'm just a protoparent until then!

MAYBE you could get away with saying it fails the "SLAPS" test, but still, that's only 1 of 3.

@starrion: Keep in mind that the CSR may just be the messanger. A lot of times they'll consult someone higher up, then respond.

What in the hell is so wrong about GIVING a shit?

Seriously, they take out the word "sexy" and it is no longer disgusting? It's the SAME FREAKIN PRODUCT!

I'm not worried about it being PC or not, I'm worried that people get their freakin panties in a bunch for a harmless word on a harmless product when within 2 seconds I can find something 1000x WORSE on the web. Maybe you should complain to all these other websites too as they're likely even MORE easily accessible than this product listing (ie you ahve to go to amazon and click around to find this, while you can google any innoculous word and you'll get plenty of sex-related content).

"Stop complaining and be good parents."
WHAT!? Why can't I be a good parent AND complain? I can. It would be more reasonable to make the argument that you can't be a good parent and just let this shit slide, though I wouldn't take it that far.

"It's PC run amok."
BULLSHIT. The ad isn't politically incorrect, it's fucking disgusting.

"You can't change anything"
These are the people pissing me off the most. Look, getting these ads pulled isn't a huge deal, but the fact is that this world is a better place without them, even if it's only .0000000000001% better, it's positive change. People with this "Bend over, put yer blinders on and just take it" attitude are so corrosive to society. Your apathy and passivity is your business, but to be so wrapped up in your own laziness to try to imply that there's something wrong with people who actually GIVE a shit, that's pathetic.

"Vote with your wallet and stop bitching."
I do vote with my wallet, and I also filter media content for my kids (they're little, it's still my call on 95% or more of what they read, hear, or see). But what you call "bitching," I call citizenship. I care what goes on here, and I take responsible action to try it be a nice place. There's nothing whiny about it, though I could think of other words for those advocating just laying down and taking it.

"These are the same parents who..."
You don't know each and every parent who complained about this, and it's lazy and irresponsible to lump them into some profile you imagined that would support your apathetic stance. Unless you're a sociologist, STFU.

Anyhow yeah, I know, I'm letting snarky internet trolls get to me, and I shouldn't. I should probably refrain from entering discussion on the intertubes about things I take really really seriously, like parenting.

Sorry for the angry tone, deep breath in 3.. 2..

@starrion: Totally possible. I worked for a small business (four employees, and our employer) that did some selling on Amazon and eBay, and the most you had to do to make accomodations for a customer complaint was say, "Boss! I'm gonna do [...] because someone justifiably complained."

If we'd been in that situation, it would have been "Boss, we look like pedophiles, can I fix that?"

No, I'm just pointing out the irony between J.L.S.'s pregnancy and the uproar caused using the word "sexy" on a childrens clothing product.

Point is there I don't see parents complaining for Disney to cancel their shows over ROLE MODELS that get involved in provocative and immoral behaviors (High school musical, hanna montana, that jamie lynn spears show, etc.), yet parents will get all hot and bothered that a piece of clothing is described as "sexy".

I am really fucking sick and tired of people creating these profiles and false connections for what they perceive parents to be like. I'm a parent, I found the ad disgusting, I complained. That doesn't make me PC or have anything to do with entitlement.

@tc4b: To start, I agree with what you are doing as a parent to complain about what you don't find acceptable.

"I know we didn't just save the world, but dammit, we DID get it taken down."

What have we actually accomplish though? One site took the word "sexy" off an item description. Kids are still going to watch tv, listen to radio, and just go out in public. Honestly do you think your children are influence more by that item description or by what they see on tv shows/commercials, hear in their fav. songs, or read about in magazines. It really sucks that we have little control over what influences the younger generations.

Right...so then parents have to protest a product description that over-sexualizes pre-teen girls just by mentioning the word "sexy" in the description.

I guess Jamie Lynn Spears got pregnant by immaculate conception because it has nothing to do with sex, because I don't see any complaints to disney about teen pregnancy when TEENAGE ROLE MODELS are getting pregnant.

But...come on folks...are we really getting our panties in a bunch over a word? Get over it...seriously. PC conscious people are ruining our society - particularly the parents. You try and protect and shelter your kids to the point where they grow up with a false sense of entitlement and have no idea of how the real world works. Then...these are the SAME parents that are always whining about the younger generation walking around with an undeserved sense of entitlement. Well guess who raised all these kids?

Basically, parents are the first, last, and only parties who have a vested interest in making sure their children are raised properly. Casting blame on the world around us, whether out of genuine concern or out of a desire to shirk responsibility, is to focus attention on something that cannot be changed.

@lrbreckenripple: You personally may not, but someone out there is or companies wouldn't be selling them. We as consumers are the ones that drive marketing. If there is no desire for a product then it will not sell.

I think the problem goes much deeper than just protecting their children.

First, whatever happened to raising children to act, think, and DRESS morally or properly? If a child was raised with the right values/morals, there would be no need to protect the child from exposure to things they shouldn't be exposed to because the can be trusted to do right.

Secondly, failure to do the first leads parents to need to protect the child from exposure to things they shouldn't be exposed to, because they fear that exposing the child will now corrupt the child since they failed at raising the child properly.

Thirdly, failure to do both the first 2 leads them to complaints like this, where they now pass on the responsibility of morality to 3rd parties. They failed at raising the child morally, they failed at protecting the child from being exposed to corruption, so let's pass the onus on to strangers to make sure our child is protected.

From what I see in society, most parents don't even bother trying the first 2 steps, they just skip to the 3rd...that way they always have someone else to blame.

A culture is nothing more than a collective consciousness and sense of values. For that to change, there needs to be a critical mass of the population that is dissatisfied. I would submit that during any historical major culture shifts that seem to have been initiated by one person, there was already a large undercurrent pushing the culture in the new direction. The final, identifiable moment is simply the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

So, to get back to the issue of trying to "fight" this alleged over-sexualization of minors, there is very little that one individual can do. I suppose it's unfair to call the attempt "useless", but it is certainly going to be of no more importance than, say, voting in a political race. The fact is that it is the collective consciousness that ends up mattering, not the opinion of any one single participant. That's what I mean when I say time and energy is much better spent trying to influence our own spheres of life, rather than society as a whole.

Again, I have to recommend Pirsig here. A lot of you have at least heard of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", but "Lila" is much less popular. Both are extremely important works that can shed an interesting light on where our culture has ended up and how it got there. Just great stuff.

I kid, I kid. But a lot of people have already said what I wanted to say, so I'll leave it be.

However, it was disgusting, offensive, and uncalled-for. People on this site keep trying to treat good parenting and complaining about disgusting crap like this as mutually exclusive. They're not. I can be a good, responsible parent, AND complain to companies who are this vile.

I know we didn't just save the world, but dammit, we DID get it taken down.

The ridiculous part about the complaint is that it's not even about what a corporation decided to sell or what an artist decided to make...the complaint's not about the product at all, but rather a word that the vendor used to describe the product...that's what irks me!

I don't disagree with you about the value of the personal, but I don't think that precludes an industry-direct address, and I don't think the latter is useless.

Logicality is a rare find in our world, and we can't depend on the things around us falling into place neatly. There are obstacles we can't remove, so we need to do our best to personally overcome them.

@mrdeeno: It's possible to worry about more than one thing at one time. Multi-tasking is awesome.

Yeah, companies can do whatever they want to but that doesn't mean it's logical.

I'm not claiming you have no right to disagree with the marketing, or with the trend you describe in general. What I'm saying is that addressing the problem at the level of one's personal relationship with one's own child is always more effective than trying to launch some crusade against the advertising industry.

Not criticizing your parenting at all, so I hope my tone doesn't seem to imply that. The phrase "fight the culture" did catch my attention however, as it has historically been impossible. Robert Pirsig has some fantastic meditations on this in his masterpiece "Lila".

Also, anyone viewing the web in general can easily be exposed to much more explicit things than crotchless panties. I don't think Amazon product listings are particularly risque in light of the internet as a whole. Once again, it is up to individual parents to protect their children. I'm not claiming this is easy, but it's a simple fact that cannot be changed.

I think these companies should complain that parents aren't keeping a leash on what their kids are looking at on the internet.

no, i'm not saying people shouldn't complain on the internet...i'm saying PARENTS have worse things to complain about than how a company decides to DESCRIBE their product.

Hey, if the product WAS too sexy for a tween or whatever, then I would see a valid complaint...but that's not what the complaint was about, it was about the freakin DESCRIPTION which has no bearing on whether the product really is or is not "sexy".

Ok so I don't see what the big deal is over these stockings. They are after all just a par of stalkings that women, and yes even young girls, have been wearing for ages. So what the item description says "sexy", do you people not watch tv or listen to music? Everything in society is geared towards sexuality. Even the dolls you buy for your daughter look like little street walkers. The word "sexy" should be the least of parents concerns. Your little girl is not going out and buying this stuff for herself... you are buying it for her. So if you don't like the idea of your daughter dressing like a stree walker, THEN DON'T BUY IT!

There was an excellent report from the American Psychological Association about two years back that looked at the influence of advertising on little girls and their premature sexualization, and the various negative outcomes from that. Even children who are protected from the ads and from the toys/clothes/whatever that are the subject of the ads still suffer from the culture that permits these kids of ads.

Whether they remove the word "sexy" or not is inconsequential. Why is a company that brands themselves "PrettySinful Risque Lingerie" marketing to children at all? Anyone viewing their website would be exposed to some very adult stuff like crotchless panties, tied crotched panties, fetishwear, etc.

Don't know about you, but I certainly was a sexy kid. I caught cooties multiple times due to my promiscuity.

http://www.amazon.com/Girls-Spider-Sexy-Tights-Hosiery/dp/B001CVI1ZM/ref=sr_1_25?ie=UTF8&s=apparel&qid=1228400962&sr=1-25

http://www.amazon.com/Girls-Opaque-Sexy-Tights-Hosiery/dp/B001CV4SQS/ref=sr_1_20?ie=UTF8&s=apparel&qid=1228400953&sr=1-20

Changed indeed.

Point is, if you have a problem with the product, then have a problem with the product. In this case, someone isn't complaining about the product, but rather what words a company chooses to describe its product.

Seriously, are there not enough problems in the world for parents to worry besides stupid stuff like this? Are they so bored that they have to resort to surfing the internet to find occurrences of non-PC advertising to make a fuss about?

'Hey girls, check out this clubbing outfit!'
'The same crotchless panties Paris Hilton wears.'
'Look 27 and still be only 12 in these thigh high boots.'

The weirdest thing about this company is all their other clothes are found in the "adult bookstore" merchants. They don't sell any other kids' clothing. It's almost like they had too many of these tights and someone said, "Hey. I got an idea. Let's sell these extras to kids."

Ewwww.

Wow!

A lone CSR can make a decision like that.

Right...