No vagina, pre-teen or otherwise, should ever be commodities, but we all know sadly that's not the case. :( It's yet another battle to take on.

You know, a few nights ago, I had dinner with a friend and the conversation turned into the sexualization of children ...she brought up the point that we can't blame the corporations, but rather, the parents for even buying their children these things. Thoughts?

Children have no purchasing power - so it takes the approval of parents to allow children to have these things. While we must draw a line in the sand against corporations, we also need better parents, I think ...like it or not, parents can be misogynistic, too, without realizing it.

I didn't go into the teen pregnancy rate and birth control sabotage and violence against women and the whole vaginas being property of someone else thing, but I sent this letter. Copy/paste/modify, and I hope it's okay that I copied the commentary from this post in the letter. I felt it was an economical use of words:

Dear Sir or Ma'am:

I was alarmed to learn that you carry the following garment in the Juniors clothing section of your store:

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/5003/whoneedsyu4.jpg

I find it deplorable that you carry clothing items that essentially tell adolescent girls that they don't need to worry about finances since they have their very own moneypot between their legs.

I will withhold my grocery and Christmas shopping until this matter is resolved and an apology is issued. I will urge my friends and family to do the same.

And does the tag on the underwear say, "For Every Wish?" Someone explain to me what the fuck that is? Is it a company, or is it yet another attempt to make sexual references with children clothing?

At first when i saw this I thought the picture was from engrish.com or one of those sites. That might have been funny. Oh how I wish it were from engrish.com and not a serious product being marketed to American teens.

"And does the tag on the underwear say, "For Every Wish?" Someone explain to me what the fuck that is? Is it a company, or is it yet another attempt to make sexual references with children clothing?"

It's probably some kind of "Christmas Tag".

So... they won't sell music that isn't "family friendly" but they'll sell guns, underwear that promotes child prostitution, and shirts that promote stalking? That makes sense.

Something just crossed my mind - sorry for bogarting the thread - but Wal-Mart might as well have a special representative to deal with feministing.com readers, because they've heard from us in the past, they're hearing from us now, and I have no doubt they'll hear from us in the future.

Wouldn't it be cool to have a "Just For Feministing Reader" manager?

While children might not have much purchasing power apart from their parents, they are still exposed to this product and the message it promotes as they walk through the juniors section. I bet there are some very angry parents out there.

Yet, are we absolutely sure that this is for real? It just seems so... obviously inappropriate and sexist and.. predatory and gross. From a chain that really, really wants the money of all those Christian Conservatives and Neo Cons, not to mention just sane parents, I just can't imagine what anyone was thinking - from the person who ordered them to the manger that let them be hung on the rack.

The fact that its in the girl's department is disturbing. But I think I'm equally upset even if it was only being marketed towards adult women.

The key word is "Marketing." It's promoting and attitude, that unfortunately it way too common, that women's vaginas are commodities. I really would love to know which fashion designer came up with that message and thought it "snarky?"

Sent one letter to their headquarters and one to my local store. Add one more reason to not shop at Wal-Mart.

Maybe it can be seen as a cautionary axoim against recent reforms in bankruptcy law that make credit card debt nearly non-dischargeable.

I took it to mean, "Have fun, who needs things and debt?" I don't think the message translates directly to: "use your pussy to get things!"

Oh god.

The other day, I saw a girl who was no older than 10 wearing a shirt that said, I swear to god, "Girl Gone Wild."

It's so explicit and sickening. Do people not understand what they are saying when they sell or buy clothes like this?

I saw these at Wal-Mart too and it didn't make any sense to me. Then I looked at the butt and it says, "...when you've got SANTA!"

I love this site, but I think someone got upset without doing their research. This is the first time I've ever posted and it makes me wonder what other details have been over-looked in the past...

...just saying.

"You know, a few nights ago, I had dinner with a friend and the conversation turned into the sexualization of children ...she brought up the point that we can't blame the corporations, but rather, the parents for even buying their children these things. Thoughts?"

Indeed. I am a father. I have a daughter who is seven.

I do not know how my daughter will be during or after puberty, we will deal with it when we get there, but I have made plain to my wife and daughter that my daughter will not wear the kind of clothes that as people say, sexualizes them. My wife is not to buy them. I mean the midriff baring, spaghetti strap or strapless tops, or really short shorts that should at least be for teens to wear, if they are fashion conscious. Racy messages are also out.

My daughter is not even at the point where she knows to keep her panties from showing when she sits, and walks around the house not fully clothed. We try to teach her, but it doesn't stick. I know readers here are offended by the thought that girls/women are not allowed to think for themselves, or that they need "protection," but my daughter is simply not ready.

But jamie, why is that saying on underwear? And Santa in this case certainly seems more "Santa Baby" than The Night Before Christmas Santa.

It's still about trading something for presents from a male. That "cute" saying makes Santa in a dirty old man and a little girl into Marilyn Monroe.

The Santa thing is a whole other issue. I was just bothered that no one even mentioned the second half of the slogan, because that's misleading.

They're still stupid underwear, but they're not telling girls that they have "their very own moneypot between their legs".

jaime, I'll def look into it and of course issue a retraction if that's the case. but someone sent us a picture of the undies from their local Wal-Mart--which I noted in the post--and there's no sign of them on the store website. if we made a mistake, so be it (we've certainly done it before), but i hardly think that's a reason to start questioning everything we post on.

btw, the only thing i've found online about these undies is a columnist talking about sexually charged clothing for little girls, there's no mention of the backside.

Also, even if there is a scapegoat saying about Santa on the back, the initial message is inappropriate. Pre-teens and children do not generally have the presence of mind to think "Surely not, my vagina is not a commodity, there must be some pithy saying on the back."

I agree with lilaeden. The cutesy Santa saying on the back implies that as long as you have a sugar daddy to support you, you don't need to worry your little head about finances. The reference to Santa on the back does NOT turn this into an innocent, non sexual message. It's printed on the front of a pair of panties made for girls in their early teens. If it were on a purse, then it wouldn't be sexual to me. But it's stamped on a pair of girl's panties. The Santa reference to me just adds to the message - you just need a sugar daddy, then you don't have to worry about finances or supporting yourself.

If you find this infuriating, you may want to read Packaging Girlhood: Rescuing Our Daughters From Marketers' Schemes by Lyn Mikel Brown and Sharon Lamb. I read it for a college course and found it to be an eye-opening examination of the way marketers really usher young girls straight from their youth into teenagehood, sex symbol status, and pit girls versus girls in the pursuit of boys.

It's definitely possible that this book has been mentioned on this blog before, but I thought I would mention it in light of this post.

Maybe Wal-Mart should give away a free sample of Plan B with every purchase of these panties. Oh, that's right. They'd never make billions off such filth!

Oh, yes, there are some angry parents out here.

The Santa line on the back makes the whole thing even creepier to me.

I know readers here are offended by the thought that girls/women are not allowed to think for themselves, or that they need "protection," but my daughter is simply not ready.

Well, no: Based on your description, your daughter is a young child, so it's your responsibility as a parent to protect her--to do otherwise would be neglectful--and that would also be true if she were a little boy (Though there is much less marketing of "sexy" for little boys). The problem would be if you continued to treat her like a little girl after she's grown up and it's no longer appropriate.

Now, I do think there's legitimate disagreement among readers here on the exact shape of the slope between "child needing protection" and "adult capable of running his/her own life," and I do think that's an interesting question to explore.

Man. I'm trying to imagine blue boxers for boys that said "Who needs credit cards" right over the penis. Simply would not happen.

Hearing of the Santa tagline on the back didn't reduce my disdain for these panties in the slightest. In this sense, I get a similar connotation as the "moneypot..." scenario, with a twist: I'm a helpless little girly-girl, so either Mommy & Daddy or my boyfriend (because, you know, Santa doesn't exist) takes care of me financially.

Ick. I don't and won't take back my email sent to Wal-Mart. They are hypocritical bastards, period.

I agree with those who feel that the "Santa" line on the back only makes it creepier--especially since it's on a goddamn pair of undies. If it were on a sweatshirt, it would SLIGHTLY less creepy, although still sexist because of the implication that a female should aspire to being taken care of by men.

I'm the reader that sent that picture in. I was embarrassed to find that there was a pack to the underwear because I was so upset by the front that I didn't even think to look.

That said, I still think that the entire thing is messed up. This isn't just a cute tee shirt that says "Just ask Santa" this is a pair of panties.

Exactly how nice to Santa would the girl have to be in order to get stuff?

It's a sickening idea to sell to a girl, I don't care how old she is.

I am angry that this is being marketed towards females ages 15 and up. They must think that women think about money all the time. This is so outrageous on many different levels.

And EG, I would be equally as outraged if they had blue boxers for boys/men with the "Who needs credit/debit cards" right over the penis.

Looks like my only gifts will come from f.y.e. in Aiken, Sam Goody in Orangeburg, or Best Buy in Columbia or Augusta, Ga.

Jamie I appreciate you adding the more detail about the item but I don't think it negates the initial reaction, and intention of design. If they didn't want you to assume what we all assumed, they would have put the whole like together. I also doubt that many of the men and boys and women and girls for that matter did further investigation. I think the rest is addressed in my email to WalMart

I recently discovered underwear in your juniors department that read "who needs credit cards..." implying that sex is a way to gain money and goods from those who engage. I would just like to remind WalMart that girls and women are not golddiggers, money grubbing whores, and very few in fact are sex workers. So promoting the idea to young girls and the men and boys who walk by the display only feeds the idea that a woman's goal should be to get the richest man she knows or to use the men she does encounter for money. And that she is her body, is a thing, an object, something to be bought. Not a person with a mind, talent and ambition. So please stop selling sexuality at the cost of girls self esteem, at the decreasing value of women and girls in men's eyes, and with items, such as these underwear, that have little worth to our society.

A Male, you wrote -

"My daughter is not even at the point where she knows to keep her panties from showing when she sits, and walks around the house not fully clothed. We try to teach her, but it doesn't stick."

Sorry, but what's wrong with walking around the house not fully clothed? I'm not sure that that relates to the sexualization of girls. There's nothing sexual about a little girl in any state of undress, particularly when she is in the privacy of her own home.

I think it's incorrect to see a connection between a girl running around the house half-clothed at the age of seven and her buying clothes that sexualize her when she hits puberty.

Good point, MadelineB, but I think that this sentence of A Male's comment creeped me out more than anything:

I have made plain to my wife and daughter that my daughter will not wear the kind of clothes that as people say, sexualizes them. My wife is not to buy them.

I would feel about 10 million times more comfortable with that if it said "my wife and I decided that neither of us would buy them." And I'd like to believe that's what he meant, but . . .

I noticed that too, MadelineB.
A little child's nakedness is not sexual. In fact, it's being embarassed about her nakedness and insisting she cover herself up that's sexualizing her.
It's like baby girls wearing two-piece bathing suits. Hello! A toddler doesn't have breasts; there is no need to cover them up.

"I would feel about 10 million times more comfortable with that if it said "my wife and I decided that neither of us would buy them." And I'd like to believe that's what he meant, but..."

I agree. That statement in and of itself is somewhat creepy/sexist.

While certainly I appreciate and agree with the fact that A Male doesn't want his pre-pubescent and later teenaged daughter wearing things like sweatpants with "SLUT!" emblazoned across them, such a decision should be mutually made by wife and husband.

Wal-Mart is gross and creepy and hypocritical.
To me, this also sort of sets up an either/or situation for women:
Put it on the credit card OR have someone buy it for you. You clearly don't have your own source of income, you stupid golddigger.
Also, this is extra demeaning because I highly doubt anyone shopping in the Juniors' section believes in Santa Claus anymore, so the implication goes back to the golddigger thing.
And when did the damn golddigger thing come back so strongly? I hear that stupid term all the time now. It makes me stabby.

A Male, the language you use describing how you've 'instructed' your wife 'not to buy them', is creepy.

You sound a lot like the "domestic discipline" husbands.

"are we absolutely sure that this is for real? It just seems so... obviously inappropriate and sexist and.. predatory and gross."

I dunno, I've seen preteen undies for girls with pictures of pussycats and cherries on, and that to me is pretty obviously sexual.

And yeah, while it's good to know that A Male doesn't want his daughter wearing objectifying clothing, the phrasing makes me wonder whether he came to hat decision out of a desire to see her grow up as free as possible of objectification and sexualisation, or whether he might be a future candidate for purity balls.

How about we make underpants without slogans for people under the age 16? Anyone?

Also, I think a better pitch would be: "Who needs credit cards... when you can get a job and pay for things with debit?"

And EG, I would be equally as outraged if they had blue boxers for boys/men with the "Who needs credit/debit cards" right over the penis.

Well, obviously. My point was that you'd never see this kind of message linking money and your genitals directed at boys.

You know, when I first read that my thought "Yah, who needs to buy stuff when you can just masturbate?"

But my interpretation of credit cards is really as a way to keep people who can't afford things feeling happy about themselves by spending out of their means. In other words credit cards can make you happy for a few months but masturbation can keep you entertained almost indefinitely.

Bitch of it is, Wal-Mart has been known to practice censorship with a rightward tilt.

http://www.prwatch.org/node/3917

Tempting to accuse them of flip-flopping, but it's more likely that the sixth-from-right front tentacle knoweth not what the eighteenth-from-left rear tentacle doeth.

"I recently discovered underwear in your juniors department that read "who needs credit cards..." implying that sex is a way to gain money and goods from those who engage"

Not to mention that the fact that females shopping in the JUNIORS dept aren't generally still believing in Santa. That alone blows the "its just cute santa undies" baloney right out of the water.

it's seems pretty clear that they took a sexist message and tossed the santa reference on to make it pass for acceptable.

Dear gawd, I'm going to be home in MO by next week and it's one of those towns that Wal-Mart has a monopoly over. I'm checking out grocery stores in Memphis (where I'm flying into) so that I can have my dad take me there to buy groceries instead (I'll be dazzling my parents with my L.A. cooking skillz;))

I hate shopping at Wal-Mart and am happy to now live in a place where I don't have to, but going home it's ten times as hard to avoid the bastards.

The panties are creepy, even with the "Santa" on the back, and as someone might have already brought up, Santa doesn't exist, so what does that even mean? Who needs credit cards when you've got an imaginary creation (who's really your parents) buying you things. And little kids don't really know what credit cards are, so why are we putting a future of debt in their heads?

And it's not just Wal-Mart and pre-teens, I've been noticing as a young women it's very hard for me to find clothes that don't have some kind of stupid slogan, sexual or otherwise, on them.

Well, obviously. My point was that you'd never see this kind of message linking money and your genitals directed at boys.

I think, EG, a better way to test that would be to put "Future Twink" on a pair of young boys underwear, right over the butt, and then once Wal-Mart and/or parents figured out what "twink" meant, watch all hell break loose;).

Well, damn. I had no idea "twink" meant that. I've been using it for years as a sort of affectionate, juvenile, pseudo-insult meaning something between "airhead" and "doofus"--"You really thought that I was serious? You twink!" Man. Now I feel kinda dirty.

What about "rentboy"? Let's put "Who needs to be a rentboy...when you've got Santa" on a pair of boys' underwear and see how that goes over.

All this gold-digger crap annoys the hell out of me. It's just another bloody catch-22. Our culture carefully instructs young women to act like shallow, materialistic sexbots and young men to prize that type of woman (the "trophy wife") as the ideal, and then when these "ideal" women proceed to behave in the "appropriate" manner, men turn into MRA assholes ranting about how all women are greedy bitches who are just after their money. Because clearly it's the women's fault for behaving exactly as they've been specifically taught to behave. And as for the MRAs: You get what you pay for, morons!

Ooops, this comment turned into a rant. Let me just wrap up by saying, let's not all jump on A_Male for choosing a less-than-feminist phrase in his otherwise non-trollish comment. You can't shed a lifetime of sexist messages and become a perfect feminist overnight, after all. Personally I got the impression he's here on a feminist blog because he recently became the a father of a little girl, and it suddenly hit him just how sexist a world she's going to be growing up in. If so, while it's a bit sad that a man has to have a daughter of his own before he becomes open to feminist ideals, I'd still say his support is no less welcome just because he's a little late to the party.

Twink?

In comics and gaming, "twink" means "uber-powerful character", as in Q from Star Trek, The Doctor from The Authority, Superman, and possibly even less powerful characters like Wolverine. Used as in "That character is such a twink" or "You're not allowed to roll up any twinks for this campaign."

Do I want to know what it means *outside* comics and gaming?

You people EMBARASS me.

Santa is NOT a dirty old sugar daddy who brings things to little girls that flash their underwear. He is (in the common interpretation, not the sex shop) a jovial, sexless figure who brings toys to good girls AND boys. TO argue that this underwear (in its entirety, front and back) is perpetuating an idea that women should depend on men for wish fulfillment is exactly the reason feminism gets such a bad rap. AT first, I interpreted this as meaning "Who needs credit cards, I don't worry about that stuff". BUT, I can see how it could be misconstrued as commodifying women and for that it's bad. But, if the back really does say "when you have Santa", it's a SLIGHTLY less offensive connotation. Walmart should be more careful about examining the potential messages of its products--especially when its underwear for preteen girls with a potentially degrading message. I could give or take the outrage over this underwear as I'm not sure the average consumer at WM would note the sexuality of the underwear. But the descriptions of Santa really make me not want to come back here.

From the ever awesome Wikipedia:

Twink is a gay slang term describing an attractive young or young-looking gay man (usually in his late teens or early twenties) with a slender build and little or no body hair.

I just know it because all my gay friends throw the term around quite a bit. There's even a sub-genre of porn for it.

I'm just sick of logans on the sexualized parts of women's bodies: you only see writing on tits, ass and panties. Men's shirts have writing on their chests, but their chests aren't sexualized. I never see writing on men's crotches.

Let's teach women from a young age to speak with their voices rather than their clothing; to create of their own statements rather than limit themselves to what corporations/society makes available to them.

Whoa there, dirtybug. It's not the Feministing readers sexualizing Santa here- it's Walmart (or their supplier, or whatever), who emblazoned his name on teen/preteen girls' asses with something about "who needs credit cards" right on the crotch.

Focus your outrage at the right party, please.

Whoa there, dirtybug. It's not the Feministing readers sexualizing Santa here- it's Walmart (or their supplier, or whatever), who emblazoned his name on teen/preteen girls' asses with something about "who needs credit cards" right on the crotch.

Focus your outrage at the right party, please.

Then don't come back dirtybug. We don't need you dropping in here telling us what we should or should not be thinking about this product, or Santa in general. Who the fuck gives him the right to decided who's been good or bad anyway?

But that's beside the point since Santa is an imaginary creation, in case no one explained that to you (sorry to break your heart). And since Santa is an imaginary creation, it's really the girl's parents who are buying all these material possessions for her.

This same commentary is going on over as Pandgon and they've got some good points over there as well, the first of which being this "slogan" would have been better if it'd been ON A T-SHIRT as Santa (or the viewer) should be able to read it right? But, and let's think about this now, if they're going to see it, exactly how would Santa/viewer see it as it is? If the message was simply to be innocent then it shouldn't have been placed ON THE PANTIES. That is was is very telling.

I made the comment over there that since slogans on panties are meant to be seen then there's no need to put them on little girl's panties in the first place.

A Male:

Let your daughter run around the house naked. Seriously, she'll be fine. I grew up in a naked house, I still live in a naked house, and I am a functioning member of society with two degrees and no criminal record. Let her let that shit breathe, yo. She's got plenty of time to feel shame about her body - don't rush it.

That's funny, the junior department eh? In my Walmart these panties were located in the x-mas section.

While I agree that these underwear are inappropriate, saying they are for "preteens" is something I would be inclined to disagree with. I didn't wear juniors clothes until I was 15 (granted, a bit young for prostitution) - I was a really small kid. I'm actually 22 and still wearing juniors clothing because women's clothing doesn't quite fit my body shape and weight.

I don't think they were marketed for preteens. Juniors sizes really aren't intended for preteens. Wal-Mart, using the tiny brains that they do have, probably intended them for the 16 (or 18, if you're one of those people who statutory rape laws determine when someone can be sexually active, regardless of their maturity) and up crowd. I'd probably buy them and think they were a hilarious owning of my sexuality. You know, put my own spin on it: something like it's so great, I could charge for it!

The big problem with them is the fact that they are available to younger women simply because some girls shop in the juniors department due to the size of their bodies.

I agree with BabyPop - don't encourage young girls to rely on their sexuality to bring home the bacon.

Maybe you should send the "preteen vaginas are not commoditites" message to the parents who buy this stuff for their daughters. Isn't it their responsibility to protect their kids?

Maybe you should send the "preteen vaginas are not commoditites" message to the parents who buy this stuff for their daughters. Isn't it their responsibility to protect their kids?

i didn't care much for "a male"'s tone in 'instructing' his wife, but if he's here at this website, he's showing an open mind to the issues facing women in the coming years. Welcome 'a male'.

i was born in 1963. My sister in 1965. My dad looked around and suddenly realized what his daughter's future could be...

and he joined NOW in 1966. He didn't change his ways overnight - my mom was still a stay at home mother who waited on him - but they both changed with the years...

...and raised two proud feminists. Welcome to your journey with your daughter. it's not going to be what you expect - but if you have an open mind it's going to be a lot better than you anticipate!

a couple years ago when i was still in school my roommate got all of us underwear from walmart that have cookies on the crotch and say "my christmas cookie". we thought they were kinda funny, but now that i'm thinking back on it they too came from the juniors section. its actually pretty disgusting and not even remotely ambiguous.

"From a chain that really, really wants the money of all those Christian Conservatives and Neo Cons, not to mention just sane parents, I just can't imagine what anyone was thinking - from the person who ordered them to the manger that let them be hung on the rack."

Maybe they were thinking "Who needs credit cards...when I can be a rich man's housewife someday?"?

"Man. I'm trying to imagine blue boxers for boys that said 'Who needs credit cards' right over the penis. Simply would not happen."

Hmm . . . no, but then messages like that would be suggestively misogynist, anyway.

How about "Sexy Boy" on a shirt that would fit a boy up to about five? My son actually had one of those, and it was a pity, because except for the message, it was a really nice sturdy, striped T-shirt that lasted a number of years. How about really short shorts for young boys, that are equally likely to flash underwear as "cute" short shorts for girls? My son's cub scout uniform qualifies as one of those.

Just because I mentioned only my daughter in a post about marketing toward young girls/women does not mean I am not also concerned about my nine year old son who is also considered "cute."

I neglected to take notice of this:

"A Male, the language you use describing how you've 'instructed' your wife 'not to buy them', is creepy."

I wish I could explain to readers' satisfaction about my wife from Japan, who in addition to coming from a society that has a different concept of safety or need to be practice what Americans may consider reasonable caution in the first place (other posters with considerable knowledge on Japanese culture could confirm), could be considered naive even in that culture for reasons I would only discuss with a professional. And I have, for $180 per hour, thank you.

And no, I do not practice "domestic discipline" as some have suggested. If you have any concerns for my family, why don't you contact an administrator for my personal information, and I'll tell you where to contact the local authorities or a women/family shelter myself?

Reminds me of this one I saw at the Gap:

http://liza675.vox.com/library/photo/6a00cd973ed8084cd500cd97421e7c4cd5.html

Wouldn't have bothered me without the "It's all yours" at the bottom.

About the Gap underwear:

Firstly, I am too ignorant to tell that it is exclusively male or female underwear. Secondly, I assume that those are for adults to buy for themselves, or perhaps as a joke for partners or friends. I don't believe a man would give them to his partner to stake out "his" territory, as a visual reminder to himself.

At our local flea market, a vendor was selling TINY lace thong underwear. I chewed her out! She said they were for women, but I tell you these would have fit a 5-year-old. Her response was "Asian women are small." Riiiiiight.

The local dime store clerk gave me a similar response when I complained about their house shoes that said "SEXY" or some such thing across the toe -- in sizes that no one over 4'-6" could possibly get their foot into. I was reminded that some women are really small. (Never mind that they had none of these shoes in a grown woman's size.)

These underwear are found at the same chain of stores that took a shirt off their shelves because it showed a Peanuts character (Sally, if I recall correctly) with the slogan "Someday a woman will be President." That decision was made for reasons of "family values."

Does anybody else remember that?

Just curious how this fits in. Especially now that there is a woman who might be close to the presidency.

A male, welcome. I hope you learn a lot here. I know I am!

As a mom of 6, I second (third?) the opinion that children should run around naked all they want in the safety of their home. Our job as parents isn't to make them cover their bodies or feel shame, but to protect them from any creep who would take advantage of that innocence.

The Gap underwear were on the woman's side of the store.

I doubt that any chain would ever sell men's underwear that said something like that. The idea of giving up ownership of a part of your body is only sold to women. Never to men (If anyone can refute this and back it up with proof, please do, because this is one thing I would LOVE to be wrong about).

A male: you can tell they are exclusively female because of the crotch area. It’s has a more narrow cut than men’s underwear to fit a woman’s body. And, most importantly I assume that Liza, knew if she was in the women’s section or the men’s section when she took the picture.

Having "when you have Santa" on the back doesn't make these any better. A) the front implies that young girls are looking to spend lots of money on plastic in the first place B) every preteen knows that Santa is really their mom or dad. I find them more offensive then the Gap undies.

Oh, BTW I'm a shoe size 5 1/2! So yes, some women are in that shoe size range. Actually my niece who is a preteen wears bigger shoes then I do. It's also possible the thong was a stretchy one. My sister's thongs look they were made for a toddler, but she is a size 12. So, while lots of things are marketed directly to teens and preteens in a reference to sex, maybe in those examples it's possible that was not the intent.

I see that Liza has already addressed that, sorry.

Also, I apologize for the sloppy post (missing commas,extra commas...it's comma madness).

Liza, I really believe I understand what you want to say. Women should not be promoted as the property of men.

It's none of my business, and it's a fringe market, but perhaps you have heard of chastity belts for men. Please perform a Google search for men chastity belt. It is really quite fascinating. In addition to stopping a man from pleasuring himself, or even "touching his penis," it can be shaped or snug enough to prevent erections, period. With unpleasant textures on the inner surfaces if desired. Ow. With a lock, and a key held by the partner. They have even been known to set off metal detectors, requiring explanation by the wearer. If that is not O.P.P., I don't know what is. You do remember "O.P.P." by the way, as it applied to women or men?

http://thetyee.ca/Life/2005/08/17/ChastityBelts/

"Polls report that 24 percent of men who use chastity belts are in lockdown for an entire month at a time; 58 percent get released once weekly. Brad, a 48-year-old St. Louis-based engineer who’s been 'happily married' for 25 years de-tubes from his CB-3000 'only when my wife wants, maybe once or twice a week, her call.'"

ZOMG. And "Brad's" proclamation of being the head of his household, or the fact that one needs the consent of the man to do it, do little to mitigate this.

These men and women got the chastity belt or BDSM idea from somewhere. It may be done out of love and trust, but it is still giving up control of an aspect of oneself.

Epic megafail, because never mind the feminist angle (though it is keen and accurate as always), but no smart girl or woman would get those panties because the punctuation is inaccurate.

Questions do not end in ellipses unless they are intended to be questions that become unfinished thoughts. GOD! How hard is it?!

I suppose you can't expect much from idiots who would make this sort of thing anyway, but it's called quality control. Can we please have some standards from our misogynists?

Shadowden, the rest of the question is on the back.

But A male, chastity belts are used by willing submissive males who want doms to lock them up. It's turning the traditional use of chastity belts on its head. The connection between BDSM with male submissives and cultural messages telling women we're all whores is tenuous at best.

I wore juniors clothes when I was like 11 or 12. I was pudgy. So yes, preteens DO shop at walmarts juniors dept.

And I thought the GAP undies were really creepy. If it's all yours then it isn't mine, right?

Yeah, I don't care if it says "when you've got Santa" on the ass or not, the message was divided up intentionally to create a suggestive message on the front. The implication that people are seeing didn't happen by accident.

Blah.

Who buys frilly red undies for young teens anyway? Think about it. I bet most are moms.

And did anyone notice the book cover photo on the home page right below the links to these comments? The feminist movement has few qualms about using female sexuality to attract attention to their ideas. So where is the line drawn? Young girls want to display their grown-upness. If the grown-up female world is doing cool stuff like using suggestive slogans, wearing revealing clothing, and otherwise flaunting their sexuality, then the young ones are only naturaly going to feel cool emulating in any way they can.

Adults need to discuss with their young kids the larger consequences and meanings of their actions. There are complex feminist arguments on the issue of sexually suggestive clothing. Many say any female should be able to wear any damn thing and women/girls ought to be totally free to celebrate their beauty and sexuality in any way that makes them feel good. If it attracts the wrong kind of attention, then that problem is with the observer. Anyone remember THAT argument?

Also, simply switching your shopping to just another Big Box store like has been suggested is completely inconsequential. You are supporting investors and slave wages. Stroll your local neighborhood or downtown artisan shops for beautiful hand-made gifts, or check out fair-trade imported items from around the world in shops like World Market, many on-line shops too. You can find incredibly beautiful hand-made items for very little and the crafts persons get a fair share of the sale.

I wonder if the sexualization of children can be linked to obesity in children. This is my theory. Obesity in children of poorer families is often due to bad eating habits encouraged by the cheapness of bad foods, such as MacDonald's and all sorts of other fried foods that fill them up cheaply. We all know that. But the fact it, you'd never see these panties in the kid's department of Lord & Taylor, would we? No, and I'll tell you where you can find most of these unnerving types of slogans on clothing for children: in low-budget clothing stores. Like Wal-Mart, and like Conways and others. I go into Conway now and then to observe the market (I work in fashion), and have noticed the creepiest things. Nighties with Pink Panthers on it that say, "keep your paws off," for example. Every time I see that nighty, I wonder if there's some teenage girl who actually has a good reason to wear that message in her family's home. In the same kinds of shops I see the cheap "porn star" t-shirts, the "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours", the "if you don't have $$$, you don't have me," type of thing.

You don't see this kind of thing in the places where the upper middle class shop with their kids. You see them in super cheap places where teenagers shop on their limited budgets, without the supervision of their parents.

On a more sober note, you will see grown women, now and then, wearing these very inappropriate kinds of things, too, just because they were cheap and it was all they could afford and they don't even care what their t-shirt or whatever says anymore because they're just so tired.

"The feminist movementhas few qualms about using female sexuality to attract attention to their ideas."

Let me fix that for ya:

"The publishing industry has few qualms about using female sexuality to sell more books."

Voila.

Sorry, I expressed myself a little awkwardly -- I don't mean that socially offensive clothes make for overweight conditions. I just meant that it seems to be part of the same problem. The lack of money means only the lowest quality of clothing (and food) is available to people without the means to shop at higher end stores. Bad food AND bad messages being fed to the less fortunate. Eat crap, treat your body like a machine to be stoked up and/or something to be traded. Basically turning low-income girls into total chattel.

Interesting perspective, newyorkette. Don't look, but your class snobbery is showing. Don't take that too bad, it affects most of us, whatever class we identify with. What the educated class considers profane is often quite acceptable and unquestioned among the uneducated.

Newyorkette, the irony there is that those clothes are always made in tiny sizes. Sure, you can occasionally find an offensively-sloganed t-shirt in a plus size department, I know Conway has them sometimes, but in general they are in the junior's department, where an "XL" is really more like a medium.

Unless you count the one tank top they sell at Lane Bryant that says "Buy me something sparkly." But that doesn't really fit in with your cheap clothing theory, since it's $19.50 for a tank top.

Not that I want to wear those tees, but it's really unfair. Clothing, offensive or otherwise, should be available in all sizes. I should be able to get a shirt in an 18/20 from the same rack that my friend gets her size 4, no matter what price. It's time to do away with the plus size department and put all women's clothing together. I know it would be hard for some people, they wouldn't want to be seen in the same department as the gross fat ladies (*eyeroll*), but it's the only way to be just.

My gosh, newyorkette, your arrogance is showing too! "Fixing" my prose? How East coast you sound. I meant exactly what I wrote. Take a look at any Feminist website and you will see a great many sexually suggestive photos/graphics. Look at the Playboy icon used on this site. Why is that? I highly doubt any male-centric web sites (men's movement, men's rights, ect.) would have anything analagous. Phallic symbolism? Lots of male skin? I doubt it!

My end rant wasn't aimed at anyone specific, by the way. I know it may seem like it is, but it's really just something I feel strongly about and like to express whenever I'm on a related topic.

OH CRAP! I am SO HUMILIATED :)! I didnt realize that comment handles are placed at the BOTTOM of comments instead of at the top! Sorry sorry sorry newyorkette! Yikes!, Im outta here!

Re: "Santa is NOT a dirty old sugar daddy who brings things to little girls that flash their underwear. He is (in the common interpretation, not the sex shop) a jovial, sexless figure who brings toys to good girls AND boys. TO argue that this underwear (in its entirety, front and back) is perpetuating an idea that women should depend on men for wish fulfillment is exactly the reason feminism gets such a bad rap."
(sorry i don't know how to quote)

Santa is based on St. Nicholas, who is a patron Saint of virgins. He was known for his generosity to children. And, he gave a man gold to prevent him from selling his daughters into prostitution as the father had no dowry.

BTW - this is my first time on the Feministing website, and I have to say I noticed that the logo is quite odd for something I'd think of for a feminist website. What's up with the stripper-like pose and body? The logo itself reminds me of that logo that used to be all over those hip-hop track suits, the two stripper profiled women back to back.

That's also a prototypical body on those profiles -- the tiny waist, the perky boobs, the nice, round derriere. Big, big superhero/sexual object (Barbarella-type) hair. What exactly are you trying to say with that?

I'm quite fine in my skin, and am not objecting on the grounds that I can't measure up to that example, but it does seem rather sexist in it's own way to me.

I would not feel comfortable wearing that logo. It seems to reek of that kind of "empowerment" that so many of the commenters here are objecting to. The kind of empowerment that says, I can dress like a stripper and walk down the street expecting to be taken seriously.

Mind you, I work in the fashion business and I hardly could be accused of walking around looking like some grim prude. And I'm totally for women being able to express their sexuality. But I would never do so using the language of male chauvinism turned on its head -- this is not very clever or attractive.

Vervain, much as your comment may be true in the general sense, Jessica approved that cover and has defended the choice. It's not something that was pushed on her by the publishing industry, as I understand it, so you cannot blame them for this one. Shackindawoods has a number of good points.

That said, I'm more than a little uncomfortable with "educated" suddenly becoming a class strata, and I'm not sure how well "avoid big box stores" works in reality, given that in the more traditional (i.e. economic) lower class is unlikely to be able to afford searching for and shopping at the alternatives.

Beyond that, the message is impractical -- too many people habitually shop at big box stores, and as such, they are (and will remain for some time to come) very powerful social meme distributors. Even a very vocal minority will not have any chance of affecting that context -- but that same minority might stand a chance of affecting the individual memes distributed, so I'm very much in favor of letter-writing campaigns about issues like this.

(Sadly, since I've already boycotted Wal-mart for worker treatment reasons, I don't exactly have a whole lot more to threaten them with for sexism -- but then, I can afford to shop at alternatives.)

AJ: My comment about BDSM and male chastity belts (really, an interesting topic) has absolutely nothing to do with promoting men as sluts. Unless one is an educator having an unethical or unlawful relationship, an aspiring politician or other official, I cannot tell you offhand of any critical scrutiny of a man's sexual activity. If one is a celebrity or average male, they, but not I, are probably quite proud of their alleged "prowess," like Jack Nicholson recently: he may have fathered 7,000 children my foot. Then let him be responsible for paying for child support and adult education like other dad.

I was simply responding to:

"The idea of giving up ownership of a part of your body is only sold to women. Never to men"

Even in an equal, loving relationship with full consent, wearing a chastity belt, male or female, is about as "other people's [privates]" as one can be without inflicting abuse, no? Wearing one continuously and long term, with release coming (literally), ONLY when the key keeper consents? Wearing it under work clothes or while traveling on business? Risking disease going without a good cleaning for days, weeks, months? Whoa.

Also, please refer to the linked article on the "myths" surrounding chastity belts. I was surprised myself, being concerned about the unfortunate women. Firstly, they are a fairly modern invention. In addition, according to the article, women were not necessarily trapped in them by their men, either, likely purchasing or fashioning them for themselves. Were such a symbol of the keeping females "pure," regardless of consent? Certainly.

"The feminist movement has few qualms about using female sexuality to attract attention to their ideas."

If some women would like to demonstrate their independence or empowerment, whatever they would like to call it, by rejecting the ideal of modesty or chastity for women only, then more power to them. You should see what is happening among children, teens and young adults in Japan, where all nature of crime (except theft) is much less of a problem than in the US. Since the early 90's, the question there is quite literally, "Who needs credit cards when I have more disposable income than Mom and Dad?" Most would make it quite plain that are not looking pretty for any man.

However, these women may still suffer under the continuing social scheme.

[I had one classmate in nursing, probably second in the graduating class, who probably went twice in two years without displaying her cleavage and midriff in class wearing cut or slit T-shirts several sizes too small or wearing waistless jeans that exposed her hipbones. The two times I am sure she covered up was graduation. In the hospital, or during presentations, she was all business. She was not trashy, she looked cool. I got over it and stopped looking at her, indeed, got over the idea of being surrounded by women nearly 20 years younger than myself. They also quickly "forgot" I was a man, and about old enough to be their fathers. I wish men had more selection in clothes myself. Wearing a colored kimono - I love kimono for men - is about as adventurous as I can get without looking sloppy or teh ghey. I am worried about my mother, not myself.]

"If it attracts the wrong kind of attention, then that problem is with the observer. Anyone remember THAT argument?"

I'm 39 and old-fashioned, but hey, I agree. If people were not uptight, and there were fewer sexual predators around, there would be no problem if life were a nudist beach at Club Med. I'd like to stop worrying about my waistline and lack of upper body development myself. I would simply choose not to participate.

Shackindawoods -
(sorry if this gets too far off the original point)
You've made some excellent points about switching to stores that offer fair trade gifts, but I don't think CostPlus World Market is at all fair trade, if any of the items are.

Here are some stores (hopefully the hypertexting will work):

10 Thousand Villages

Global Exchange

And a whole list of more here:
Co-op America's Green Gift Guide

And, your point about the observer being the issue, not the wearer of the garment is also excellent (I remember that arguement), and bringing up our hypocrisy about this sort of thing.
But I still am grossed out by this.
Cheers,
Binkles

"I highly doubt any male-centric web sites (men's movement, men's rights, ect.) would have anything analagous. Phallic symbolism? Lots of male skin? I doubt it!"

Of course! Unless one is a model, action hero, or into some kind of sport like competitive bodybuilding, "men" want to avoid being associated with teh ghey, who are quite comfortable with such things, as you can also confirm online.

About feministing's logo:

I'm not so sure about this, so someone else can explain better as I'm still a newbie, but I *think* the logo is isn't so much as using a stereotypic female body to say that hey, we can look like strippers if we want to, but more like taking the stereotype and giving it the finger. Am I right?

You really need to find something worthwhile to discuss, because quite frankly, this whole uproar is ridiculous. As someone else mentioned early on, where are the parents exactly? And the fact that you are interpreting it this way is because you CHOOSE to...because I guarantee you there will be just as many (and not uneducated hicks- intelligent individuals) people who would be on the opposite side of the spectrum and interpret that as an innocent attempt at humor saying just that- who needs credit cards or cash when you've got Santa coming in less than a month with gifts for all'... I know, I know, COMPLETELY out of the realm of possibility, right? I mean, it just HAS to be a knock on women and their 'vagines'.. give me a break. You really think if that was the intent, WalMart wouldve let that item on the floor and not envisioned ahead of time the shit storm thats ensued? Instead of worrying about undergarments like this, how about worrying about the incredible percentage of teenage girls who wear shit on the OUTSIDE of said undergarments that make these look like they could be worn by Sister Margaret. What a waste of energy. If you cant find anything to get in an uproar about moreso than this, then... well, nevermind. Carry on!

I have to agree with OTBuckeye. Is it really that serious? They are underwear. No one is going to see them except for the person wearing them, right? RIGHT? I'm a mother and I have a daughter I would have no problem with her wearing them. Well said Buckeye.

This is a good start, but lets also take a look at holiday marketing. For example, how many cell phone commercials paint teenage girls as fickle, gossip-crazed, and materialistic? I think the next step is to tell advertisers that this is unacceptable. Teenage girls don't need more people telling them that they are dumb. How about some respect?

"If you cant find anything to get in an uproar about moreso than this, then... well, nevermind. Carry on!"

In case you didn't notice somehow, we get in uproars about lots of things, as this blog has published hundreds (thousands?) of articles about everything from underwear to FGM to rape to advertising to grafitti to Disney movies. This isn't the only post ever written on feministing! All you have to do is erase the /archives/008226.html in your address bar and hit enter. Read the last 20 articles, then reevaluate your statement. kthnx.

I also have to agree with OTBuckeye and I'm glad that there is someone else out there who feels the same way. First of all, it was in the juniors section and in case you forgot how it felt to be in the junior section, you would probably have thought those same horrid undies were pretty cute and last time I checked it was the junior section not the kiddies section. There is a huge difference. Second of all, I think we're getting worked up over something that is so inconsequential. There are much bigger issues to be dealing with than what undies Wal*Mart is selling. Chances are that if you went through most of the undies you'd find some even worse than these. How do you get from that message that juniors vaginas are commodities. It's a definite hop, skip and big jump. No offense, but I'm not that old and I think they are kind of cute. Who is really going to see them anyways? I guess the saying is true that people will find literally anything to complain about.

Yeah, I love that when Fox News carries a story on this all the trolls come calling. This isn't an all-panty-all-the-time site, folks so calm the hell down.

On the logo...It's ironic! That's why she's giving the finger: it's a fuck you to the traditional beauty standards/sexism she represents. For more, ,a href="http://feministing.com/archives/008080.html"click here.

"In case you didn't notice somehow, we get in uproars about lots of things, as this blog has published hundreds (thousands?) of articles about everything from underwear to FGM to rape to advertising to grafitti to Disney movies. This isn't the only post ever written on feministing! All you have to do is erase the /archives/008226.html in your address bar and hit enter. Read the last 20 articles, then reevaluate your statement. kthnx."

This is true... and I appreciate the 'WebBrowser 101', but I've got it covered... funny thing is, if I took out the word 'panties' and did an 'insert word here' for several other topics covered, the end argument would be the same. What do I know, though, I'm just some ignoramus who is too intellectually inferior to be able to discern the subliminal message on a pair of Xmas pantyloons. I'm not bashing everything on this site- I'm not that narrow minded- but this entire argument and uproar is a joke. And I stand by my original statement- if you cant find anything else to complain about, then either you arent well versed in what's going on in the outside world, or you just have a hatred for undergarments and are an advocate of going commando. Have a great day.

Wow, funny how everyone goes up in arms about a piece of clothing that is meant to be worn UNDER another piece of clothing. I have 3 daughters, the only time their underwear would be seen by anyone else, is when their laundry it being done by me or my wife. There is no reason to think that a corporation, who I'm sure had to go through a ton of censor approvals, would purposely sell something suggestive. One person thought it was wrong, said something to the press, and now EVERYONE thinks its wrong. Where is the photo of the backside? No one will see it. That would make the media obsolete in having a story. Silly media, twisting and taking everything out of context. Its a piece of cotton with ink on it, not a sign saying "Come get a piece"! I guess its just a feminist thing. Im not saying that I turn women into objects, they're not. But it you wouldn't see a teenager upset about the panties, you wouldn't see a woman in her late teens to mid 30's complaining. Its just the "Older-Fashioned" (not old) ladies who take offense (and if there are younger taking offense, its because they take make up their own minds). Humor in this world is changing. The world is not going to well for some, so a pot-shot at humor here and there helps us get through. Laugh it up, relax, and ENJOY the life you are living. Don't spend every moment complaining or trying to find something to cause an up-roar about. Thank you.

As disgusting as this is, we shouldn't be shocked. I found this forum while reading the news on Foxnews.com. There are five stories in the news today that are offensive to those who love and respect womankind. An 11 and 14 yr old try to sexually assault a 60-year old woman, a Muslim dad kills his daughter because she won't wear her head wrap, six NJ troopers accused of sexually assaulting a woman, Wal-Mart and their hooker drawers and Paris Hilton wearing nothing but gold paint for a champagne ad. The latter is her choice and if I thought it had a damn thing to do with empowerment, I'd be all for it. As a father of two young women, I've been dealing with this sort of ignorance for nearly 20 years. The more I see, the madder I get. I'm sorry there aren't more dads that care enough to speak to their precious daughters about this kind of thing.

You what's *really* funny - when the same person posts under multiple screen names to make it look like there's a lot of people who agree with them.

or that multiple dishits who know fuck-all about feminism think they get to decide what feminists can talk about.

But what's not funny is these same dipshits think this shit is okay for children. Grow up and stop being trolls.

Thanks!

My local legislators have spent the past several weeks drafting a bill that would change the name of our capitol building's holiday tree to a Christmas tree after some trumped up Bill O'Reilly-esque charges of anti-Christian sentiment. I'm far more upset about my tax dollars being wasted on that kind of bullshit than an open discussion on a blog, OTBuckeye. 'kthanx.

Here's a very funny (and sad) editorial on the same subject:
http://www.nysun.com/article/66915

by the author of, I kid you not, "Stop Dressing Your Six-year-old Like a Skank."

But it you wouldn't see a teenager upset about the panties, you wouldn't see a woman in her late teens to mid 30's complaining. Its just the "Older-Fashioned" (not old) ladies who take offense (and if there are younger taking offense, its because they take make up their own minds).

*sing-song* Somebody doesn't know what site they're on... hee hee hee hee hee hee hee

OTBuckeye, JustBreathe, etc: You’re not seeing the big picture when you say this is “just� underwear and what’s the big deal? Yes, girls’ underwear is a small facet of the world, but these underwear are a single example of an overarching set of ideas about girls & women and sexuality. Sexism isn’t produced by someone sitting the world’s population down and screaming into a bullhorn explicitly: “Girls should aspire to be sexy rather than striving to realize their potential as human beings!� Instead, that message is communicated in a thousand tiny tiny tiny ways every day—from how commercials depict girls & women, to what parents and friends say about the sexes, to jokes, to off-hand comments conveying expectations for achievement, to, yes, the clothing we wear. These underwear are part of a broader message to girls about how they should regard themselves and their sexuality: available for a price, and themselves a commodity.

About the argument that these underwear are not significant because no one is going to see them, being worn under clothing… There needs only be one person who sees these them for them to have an impact—the fifteen to eighteen year old girl who will wear them and internalize their message. No one else needs to see the underwear for them to shape the worldview and self-concept of that one girl.

I would have thought the Fox News viewers/readers would have found these panties nasty. Sexualizing little girls and all.
But I guess since the evil feminists got outraged over them, the wingnuts feel they have to take the opposing view.

I would have thought the Fox News viewers/readers would have found these panties nasty. Sexualizing little girls and all. But I guess since the evil feminists got outraged over them, the wingnuts feel they have to take the opposing view.

WORD.
(who did I steal that from...dinogirl, maybe...whoever I stole it from, I diggin' it)

The critiques of this "just being about underwear" make me think of the essay "Oppression" by Marilyn Frye (a feminist must-read by the way). It isn't that long...so go google it. Yeah, it is just underwear, but it is representative of a much bigger issue.

Kmari1222, I think that MIGHT be the point, but it's not very clear to me. And I personally wouldn't feel the need to have a superhero woman type icon represent me while I assume my power in society as an intelligent, attractive woman. I think it's time for that logo to evolve into something more representative of the state of womankind today. Of else go more extreme, like have the silhouette of a woman in a burka giving society the finger?

Do you see what I mean? I think it's perfectly possible to represent the beauty of a woman with power without resorting to comic book male fantasy images of women. That's not how I see myself when I feel powerful and independent and well in my skin as a woman. A stripper-like image is not my idea of what a sexy, sexual woman is -- it's a man's idea. And while there are men reading this website (as evidenced by our wise wife-manager Mr. "A Male" above), this is a website for women, not for men who we want to "give the finger" to.

I'd love to hear what the people at feministing thinks of this point, too.

newyorkette, i'm not going to get in a debate about the logo--we love it and think it's perfect. thanks!

Newyorkette, this is a website for feminists. And we don't want to give the finger to men. We are flipping off the patriarchy and those who perpetuate it.

I kinda like the logo too. Yeah she's flippin' a bird, but it is for all the right reasons...

"our wise wife-manager Mr. 'A Male'"

I wonder if anyone here would really care to take the time to learn about the differences between Japanese and US society *in general*, for me to actually believe my university educated Japanese wife and native English speaking children need "instruction," when it comes to personal safety among other things. Don't take my word for it, or any links that I give you. No. You are mature, intelligent critical thinkers. I shall allow you confirm it for yourselves if you really care to be open minded. Anyone else can make their way through this if they wish:

First I will tell you this. Some are offended by Americans or feminists "telling" British Indians or anyone else how to think or live. Japan is one country that needs guidance, from outside if necessary. There are Japanese women's activists, but their influence is limited, and there is not much popular support for "women's" rights at all. One news story I read while in Japan in the mid 1990s really stuck with me, for the situation has not changed much. One touring American activist gave a speech at a gathering of Japanese advocates and other listeners. The American activist asked why, I forget the particulars, the Japanese movement was the way it was. The Japanese side responded with, [I forget name]-san, why don't you lead us? In another news item, the nightly TV news, some women's rights activists in Tokyo [largest, most modern Japanese city, mm?] held a one day sit-in for women, to make society understand the influence of women. Reporters asked random female passers-by for their reaction. Without exception, the women on camera not only claimed to be unaware of the event, they had no interest in it. Why? Why not demonstrate to a male dominated society, the influence women have? "Because I have to go home and cook for my husband." [handpalm] Does anyone else see the irony here? These husbands cannot be expected to fend for themselves for even one single meal. Even if they can't cook due to lack of experience, have they not heard of restaurants? How about that, Missus? God, reading about the Japanese women's movement was so interesting. Ironically, they probably were most powerful and influential in the decade immediately after WWII, when allowed new freedoms, some Japanese women immediately rose to power as politicians (allegedly Christian), and through their influence, outlawed prostitution and pornography. [In theory, at least.]

While we are on the topic of "the finger," in Japan "the finger" is considered to be a joke, which has lost the meaning it first had when it was introduced from the outside. The same for "fuck you." It is considered a joke. When I lived there, you could find both on television programs and in comics meant for children. Just one real world example: a bunch of Japanese teenaged boys, my new year public school students, came up to me with smiles on their cute 7-8th grade faces, and in what I assumed was meant to be a friendly gesture to break the ice, a number put up their fingers in front of my face, and said with same smile: "Fuck you? Fuck you? Fuck you?" while they all laughed.

I did not join in, but was able to see the humor in this, because I knew they didn't understand. They were in a safe environment. Their country, their school, their turf. Now what would happen if they paid five dollars as many did, and went up to spend their Saturday or Sunday afternoon hanging out in the big city of Hiroshima, where there were thousands of foreigners such as groups of local US Marines on leave, and tried the same friendly approach? I do not mean to denigrate US Marines when I say those little boys would probably get their asses stomped by a gang of Marines. It would be a simple, yet costly misunderstanding for all parties involved. Worse has truly happened.

It is a very, very, very common practice for Japanese young people, say from older elementary up to college age, to call out to, or approach random foreign looking people to "practice their English." It does not matter if the strangers are Brazilian or Russian, either. A lot of what these people actually try is what they see in media, made popular by Japanese comedians, popular music, or Hollywood movies. I am sorry, but even a group of liberated, independent young women should not approach a random man or GROUP of foreign men, say US Marines, on the street and say "I love you," (happened to me, but those were just more of my students) without at least understanding what might happen. No, I am not blaming women. The same goes for Japanese men who want to try an authentic rap/hip hop "motherfucker" with a real, live, omg, black American when he is least expecting it, just walking hand in hand with his girlfriend in the shopping arcade; much less from a Japanese total stranger with a smile on his face with his smiling friends. None of these are hypothetical situations. Things like this can and do happen to my foreign colleagues or to random foreigners, at any time.

Ah, my family: one day this year, both my children for some reason, came home and were giggling their asses off flipping the bird around the living room. Someone at school probably thought it was funny to teach the little Japanese kids this important aspect of American culture, or maybe it was just their time as kids. In any case, I happened to be on the sofa, and I tried to impress upon their first and second grade minds what the outcome of using that hand gesture could be at school, or particularly among strangers. I told my son, he would probably get into a fight (please note my daughter often makes her two years older brother cry for his "Mooooooommy," by simply not sharing toys, or suddenly helping herself to whatever he is playing with at the time - yes, my son and daughter have their own toys "male" and "female," but play together with exactly the same toys like Legos, stuffed animals and dolls, marbles, a basketball or football, my daughter's pink bicycle . . . A "real" fight with an offended boy will go unfavorably). For my daughter . . . I guess giving someone the finger would just be plain rude, but it shouldn't be done.

It just so happened they stopped doing it, but I still feel they do not understand why it would be unwise to indiscriminately and randomly give people the finger. I shall wait and see, and if I can be there, I will need to try to explain our position to the offended parties. Oh, I almost forgot her - I will need to do it, because my wife does not understand the significance, either. For someone of mine and my wife's generation in Japan, "the finger" appears to be an alien concept. It seems to lack any American meaning at all. My wife does not consider it funny. My wife does not consider it offensive. As a matter of fact, in Japanese sign language, or in common usage, a raised middle finger means elder brother! [By the same token a raised thumb means father . . . ] I tried to explain the significance of "the finger" to her at the same time as with the kids. She then proceeded to translate what I said into Japanese for some reason - my children are native speakers of English - but I do not believe she absorbed it either.

Relevant aside: In nursing, we were taught that on average, six repetitions are required for teaching to stick. This is not the best example, but:

Me [showing drug label]: "Mr. Jones, you need to take this antibiotic 'one tablet, three times a day, *around the clock* until empty.'"
Jones: "Yeah."
Me: "Can you repeat it for me?"
Jones: [repeats verbatim]
Me: "Do you understand?"
Jones: "Yes."
Me: "Mr. Jones, can you tell me when you will take your medicine?"
Jones: "When I wake up in the morning, at lunch time, and before I go to bed."
Me: "When will you stop?"
Jones: "After I feel better."

No, the dramatized but realistic Mr. Jones, despite being a college graduate, an engineer, a factory foreman, a successful husband and father of four, does not get it. Which coincidentally, is how my mother and wife used to believe "three times a day" medicine were taken. No, that "around the clock" makes more plain than anything else, that each dose of the medicine is meant to be taken as close to eight hours apart as possible, even if it means waking you up in the middle of the night. Doctors who don't mind disregarding sleep time because sleep is more important for recovery of say, a cold, will tell you so.

So in addition to adjusting my language into separate phrases or in lay people's terms, please imagine the entire above conversation five more times throughout the period of hospitalization. I consider this concept of a round of antibiotics to be considerably more simple than the significance of "the finger."

Again, I do not believe my patients are stupid, just because they do not understand their own language. This is clinic speak.

I am not actually going to talk to my wife and children the average six times about "fuck you" or giving people the finger. Oh, yes, by the way, one day more recently as I sat at my computer, I could swear I heard I think it was my seven year old daughter, suddenly say "fuck" from right behind me. I must admit, I was caught by surprise. I whipped my head around and deadpanned "What?" "Nooothing," said my daughter tilting her head with one of her goofy smiles.

[I also need to further "instruct" both my children that they should not smile or laugh during a serious conversation such as being scolded. Never mind me - their schoolmates, teachers, or other elders and authority figures might get understandably pissed if it appeared my children were mocking them or not listening seriously and have unfavorable consequences.]

Does anyone here not see a problem with that? Not a girl saying fuck. A seven year old possibly slipping and saying fuck in polite company or among strangers like at her girl scout meetings, in a restaurant, or at a PTA meeting; without really understanding what it meant, or what effect it could have on people.

I cannot with reliability prevent my children from swearing. I see them less than six hours a day even when there are no meetings or lessons. Even fewer if I have weekend, holiday or shiftwork. The only thing I can be sure of, is I try to explain that "that word," I am not going to repeat or reenforce it, is a "bad" word, and "maybe someone will fight you," or something like that.

I choose not to swear, and this post of mine is really out of character. Anyone who knows me in real life would not recognize my hand in this post. If my children want to emulate their peers or movies and talk that way among friends when they hit junior high or high school - including as how my friends and I used to do in 7th grade, break open and read "Totally Tasteless Jokes" aloud in its entirety to each other - I'll try to be open minded. But they are not going to use that language against me or in Grandma's house. Grandma grew up with the soap or paddle treatment 60 years ago, I got the leather belt until 33 years ago, and she'd have my ass today for simply allowing my children to say it.

I do believe a good deal of the offense I sense here is due to the fact that I am a male, and that my partner in need of "instruction" is a female. But believe you me, any one of you would likely have a great deal to "instruct" your Japanese man about, if you were in such a relationship. For example, about Japanese vs. US dating or sexual customs. Or how a husband and wife conduct themselves as partners within the household, better yet if you both lived in *Japan*. Would you want your Japanese man to cook, clean, do laundry, or take care of the children? Do you want to continue your career, whether or not you actually have children? If the Japanese man is older than his mid 30's you may have an ordeal on your hands, no matter how much you love each other.

My wife and I are 39. She grew up without a mother. She was raised by older relatives, I mean near elderly or actually elderly. She is an unusual woman. Part of her charm. But for someone so young, she's got some odd ideas about married relationships. For example, the traditional Japanese idea that the man makes the money. The man gives all the money to the wife. The wife manages the household finances herself. The wife gives the husband an allowance, in my case in Japan, about $200 a month. Anything else left over gets saved for the future. I got to feel "manly" as the breadwinner or the husband of a traditional wife (even though the wife may have her own job and money), but the flip side of the man being responsible for "outside" the house, inside the house is supposed to be the woman's domain.

For example, when I questioned my wife about her choice of home appliances when we moved in together as a married couple (Japanese woman responsible for setting up the house including furnishing it, prior to living together), she suddenly got a serious look on her face and told me, "the man is not supposed to talk [about] in the house.*"

Oh, sorry honey, it's just that, as part of Japanese wedding custom, which you demanded of me, and I caved to, I gave you $10,000 cash, about an entire year of my life savings, in a ceremonial Japanese "engagement" envelope, witnessed by your family and my mother who flew in from the US just for this, and would like to know where the fuck all "our" money suddenly went without my input . . . What do you mean this green plastic 130 liter refrigerator fucking cost $3,000, and this microwave was $700? No, of course I did not say that, but that is what I felt. Let us not speak of the $20,000 wedding she demanded, and got.

*The woman's authority within the confines of the house or family extends to how the children are raised, and for better or for worse, becoming quite similar to the husband's new mother figure. I do not have much choice in these matters. Technically, I shouldn't be the one "instructing" our children to watch their language or behavior at all. There is just the little problem of my wife not understanding what "the finger" or "fuck" means in OR out of American society. So you know who needs to take responsibility, to keep my children out of "little" misunderstandings.

By the way, my university educated wife who has done some incredible things to survive the hardship of her younger years, again, part of what I fell in love with, is not "stupid." These matters are simply alien or unfamiliar to her. I've had over 30 years of experience with "the finger" and "fuck" in common American usage. She has had a few minutes of "instruction," and has no desire to learn more on her own through readily available dictionaries or online resources in her own language. Just another reason for you know who to take responsibility.

I have 13 years of stories like this, and this was a mere portion of what I consider to be the amusing stuff, some lighthearted cultural differences. There is also the very serious personal stuff that can drive me to the psychiatrist.

[My wife of course, denies there is anything "wrong" with her or any need for her to seek "help" - based on what she has told me about her life history which I believe and will keep private, my doctor most certainly disagrees, and immediately offered referrals, including for a Japanese doctor in another city, to avoid a conflict of interest (he said, she said, for $180 per hour every two weeks times two. Ka-ching.). I told my wife not to worry about money for the therapy or for the airline tickets to get to that doctor. No dice. There is about a 5% chance of changing my wife's mind, ladies, and it would probably involve having a nasty argument. And in any case, she is never wrong, or so I would believe.]. My wife and children have their own stories about me, and consider any problems to lie within me, because I worry about "so not important" things (like table manners or looking both ways before stepping out into the street. Yes, I am well aware my children are seven and nine, and they don't get it yet). Never mind it is they who are strangers to this community and US culture. I believe I did my part to be the "Japanese" father/husband in Japan, despite disagreeing with it. I chose to conform because it is what she expected, and what she demanded.]

I am complaining about my wife a lot. I am open for discussion in this forum or any other. I would like to point out that I know my wife is not a bad person, and I am also very demanding (She needs to do her part to have the children respect her authority as an adult and their mother instead of her ACTIVELY handing the reins of authority over to me, and me being the bad guy as the scolding Daddy, while she gets to be a playmate and love pillow named Moooommy!; and to be part of keeping our children safe from what goes on outside the home, like being present and taking notice when the kids are running after a ball into the road, yes, I know they are seven and nine -- Geez!), but this is not the culture or even the *era* that she is familiar with, and she is exhibiting much less flexibility than I have been willing to give.

I admit, when I proposed to her those 13 years ago, I thought I was marrying my girlfriend, who just so happened to be my first "adult" girlfriend. [I was 26. You may laugh.] My wife, unbeknown to me, considered marriage to be a business arrangement, according to the traditional model above, about 20 years out of date even by Japanese standards. My wife told me so, *after we were married*. I told her I married her because I loved her. [Am I strange?] My wife told me YEARS LATER that she married me because I loved her. [Does anyone else see a cultural misunderstanding or communication gap here? Did she and I have some inaccurate assumptions of we and the other were entering into?] Does anyone see a source of friction that might tear many other relationships apart, if say - this is not a hypothetical situation - my wife . . . actually loved someone else before/while being married to me?

It took me years to get over that, though we argued about whether or not to stay together for only one day, and It took more time to try to earn her love, instead of her performing a "duty" (Yes, I am perfectly aware of what that word was used for recently on this site) among others, "for" her husband. Please recall that I still did not understand her reality at that time, and she was a very convincing actress.

Repeat: I can say this now because that was at the start of our marriage - my wife is not bad. We just did not communicate enough before getting married. We spent too much time on dates, having teenage telephone conversations for up to five hours a night, and having sex. Our marriage was not a mistake. It is true that I am getting a lot more from my wife, than I am offering her. I have come to realize that she is the best partner for me, probably the only woman I know who would be able to put up with me, and she is incredibly supportive. For her part, she has renewed her pledge of support for me, despite some severe health, employment, and financial problems we are experiencing.

Unsolicited, and all of this months ago: I found my wife a divorce lawyer, with language services, and have no intention of being a deadbeat dad. Quite frankly, we would not need a trial if we ever separated. Down the middle, monthly payments. Done. I got her the pamphlet for the local women and children's shelter. I got my wife references for locally respected and highly qualified professional therapists and psychiatrists, including at least one Japanese one, and told her not to worry about how much it would cost including airfare. I've told her, if she feels it necessary, she and the children can leave, back to her home country naturally, just don't make it a surprise. Ref. back to not being a deadbeat dad. I told her can even get some on the side, if she needs it, just don't be sneaky about it. I am quite happy where I am. I didn't mention: She maintains a separate bank account, per common Japanese custom, in addition to us having all the joint property. She has her own money, in addition to what a separation would bring. She has my approval to do what she wants. There are no real obstacles to her taking any path she would care to take, and I have presented it as such. She has her own plan of what to do if we were not together. Mine is better, cuz she can have all that, plus my money and my blessing.

My wife chooses to be here despite claiming to understand the choices available, and my continued support. This is becoming very interesting. Since the age of 21, I have considered my life to be an ongoing soap opera. Take note that this is prior to the Truman Show.

Now please. Seriously. Is there anyone here who would care to understand (not approve of) what I am trying to do? Can anyone see how we have tried to be flexible and see matters from the other side? Can you see we have developed as human beings and overcome some serious hurdles together? Can you see she and I both have relatively painless choices before us and choose to continue? Can you see a further need for "instruction?" Is my $180 per hour every two weeks for me only, having any positive effects?

Or do you still want that telephone number for the local Women and Children's shelter? Admins are here. Does someone need my contact information?

[I've given my wife that pamphlet myself months ago, during one of my professional visits to the OB/GYN ward. I met the director of the shelter at a local take back the night type of function. They are very nice people, and despite the name, they are not anti-male. They offer 40 (24?) session long anger management programs for men, among other services. I just opened my mouth and said something about men being abusers, and she instantly shot back that men can be victims, too. Wooo. I was not even going to bring that up, and I was not expecting that reaction.]

And this "Mr. A Male" shit is getting old. Call me Eric.

Eric, I gotta be honest.
While I am interested in your pov and what you have to say; tl, dr.

Eric, are you looking for someone to edit your novel?

What the hell ever happened to freedom? I enjoy the freedom to buy or NOT to buy what I like or don't like. But I don't try to limit what others can.
Don't let your own kids buy them and don't let strangers buy them for your kids and leave everyone else alone. Problem solved.

What the hell ever happened to freedom? I enjoy the freedom to buy or NOT to buy what I like or don't like. But I don't try to limit what others can.
Don't let your own kids buy them and don't let strangers buy them for your kids and leave everyone else alone. Problem solved.

You say..." let them know that preteen vaginas aren't commodities."

In other words, you are tacitly admitting that adult vaginas are commodities.

Maybe you should deal with THAT attitude problem first. Women who believe that their gender entitles them to special treatment. Females who believe that sex is payment for dinner and a movie. There's a short word for that.

If not for that problem, no one would have thought of these dumb sexist panties.

They were produced solely because manufacturers determined that there would be a willing market for them. (People who thought they were cute.)

But you libs have never understood the free market and never will.

When used in this context shouldn't Free Market be capitalized? Like God? Because I've never seen it used by people in these contexts except when it was presented as an article of faith.

"Eric, are you looking for someone to edit your novel?"

No thanks, when I used to write (always non-fiction, or to the best of my understanding), I used to edit it myself.

No longer necessary, anyway. It seems at least one reader understands.

Eric

"You say...' let them know that preteen vaginas aren't commodities.'"

"In other words, you are tacitly admitting that adult vaginas are commodities."

Lame.

Abusive husband: "You call this shit food?"

Does it imply that the shit over there IS food?

I have seen this on Tshirts over the years and have never seen anyone complain about it.

And I see nothing wrong with this slogan being on panties.
I asked my wife and a few other woman what they thought, and they agreed that they saw nothing wrong with this slogan for any age.

And the comment about it "being moneypot between their legs"
Is so insane that I am embarased to be human when someone has a thought like this.

I meen come on, If this slogan was on a shirt for a infant or a 2 year old everyone whould laugh and go ahhhh.
But stick it on underwear and people freak out.

I think that anyone who takes this slogon as a dirty one should get thier minds out of the gutter.

Why not focus on child bueaty pagents and the pervertedness of cartoons shown on tv.

I have seen this on Tshirts over the years and have never seen anyone complain about it.

And I see nothing wrong with this slogan being on panties.
I asked my wife and a few other woman what they thought, and they agreed that they saw nothing wrong with this slogan for any age.

And the comment about it "being moneypot between their legs"
Is so insane that I am embarased to be human when someone has a thought like this.

I meen come on, If this slogan was on a shirt for a infant or a 2 year old everyone whould laugh and go ahhhh.
But stick it on underwear and people freak out.

I think that anyone who takes this slogon as a dirty one should get thier minds out of the gutter.

Why not focus on child bueaty pagents and the pervertedness of cartoons shown on tv.

it is not that serious. they are just underwear. underwear in the junior dept. say a lot of stuff and you're not complaining about those are you. get it over anything can be offensive. if you don't like tada DON'T BUY IT!!!!!!!!!

I think that this is a funny article. got me rolling

this definitely has me laughing right now. I am not sure what to think about this. What were they thinking about this.
free credit information
help with credit score
help with debt
investing information