Woolworths withdraws 'Lolita' bed

[Tokis-Phoenix]

"Bedroom furniture for young girls with the brand name Lolita has been withdrawn by Woolworths following complaints from parents.

A parenting website said it was in "unbelievably bad taste" to give the bed the same name as a novel about a sexually precocious young girl.

Woolworths said the ￡395 Lolita Midsleeper Combi was withdrawn when the matter was brought to its attention.

Vladimir Nabokov's 1955 novel became famous for its controversial subject.

The story of a stepfather's sexual obsession with a 12-year-old girl has been adapted for film twice: first by Stanley Kubrick in 1962 and later in 1997 when Jeremy Irons played the lead part of Humbert Humbert";

Full story;

BBC NEWS | UK | Woolworths withdraws 'Lolita' bed





I totally agree with and understand why the parents wanted woolworths to withdraw this lolita bed amongst other things.

I know i probably sound really old fashioned, but i am often shocked at what some parents let their little girls wear- for example, i remember one day as i was walking around a local town, i saw a girl who looked like she was 10 years old walking around in a pair of short shorts and a bikini top, and i was just like "what?". Such clothes, whose purpose is to highlight the sexual fine features of a woman, should not be worn by pre-pubescent young girls who should not be wearing sexy clothes at their age.

I think that we are sexualising our young girls way too much in society, there is too much tolerance, acceptance and ignorance concerning such matters.
Like for example, i dunno if its just me, but i disagree with a lot of the clothes the Bratz range of girls dolls come dressed in- some of them look like LA ******! What images are we trying to let our young girls grow up with? Such clothing should not be accepted not encouraged. Take these bratz dolls for example;

http://www.psychophil.com/weblog/wp-content/images/bbbarbie.jpg

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t170/OhMeSoEmo/Twins.jpg

Boston.com: Local breaking news, sports, weather, and things to do



I mean, what next? Stockings and suspenders? Dog collars and g-strings, or maybe perhaps people will start getting lap dancing polls and playboy bunny girl outfits and porno sets for their dolls etc?
IMHO, its just wrong in so many ways some of the things parents are buying for their little girls, they're dressing them up in clothes that such girls should only consider wearing when they're of legal shagging age- otherwise, you could say what kind of attention are these parents trying to attract by buying these clothes or dolls for their little girls? What kind of values and messages are they trying to bring their girls up with- that you can only be beautiful or attractive if you dress like you're going on a hens night out etc?

IMHO, its just so wrong. I know i probably sound old fashioned, and dolls like Barbie and Cindy have been around for donkeys years now, however i do think that these modern doll brands like Bratz are taking things a step too far- Barbie/Cindy was a lot more innocent and there's no way the old companies would have dared releasing clothes that often sold with Bratz dolls with dolls like Barbie/Cindy etc.


I could rant on for a bit more, however what do you guys think about all of this? Am i old fashioned in thinking that we're sexualising young girls and bringing them up with things that are too sexually suggestive, or that these things are fine and are doing no harm to the innocent minds of our children etc?

 

[Haruspex]

Well... to me it all seems pointless. I mean, come on, aren't those parents just a little dirty minded? After all, its not like those kids are going to have orgy's in those beds. Its just a name.
But I agree with dolls, I DETEST THEM!
Spiderman, Barbie, Cindy, Action Man... HATE IT ALL. My opinion is: either give a kid dolls made of natural materials, or buy him a console. Down with plastic sh*t!
Btw lol, Bratz porno set sounds funny, lol domina suit for children would make me rofl like never before.
There's simply one thing that can be done. Cross your arms, while I don't see the problem with the lolibed, some clothes really are troubling. Kids of retarded parents are going to suffer, you can't do a thing, if not those clothes, they'll come up with something similarly stupid. Just watch them and have fun.

 

[Sarapva]

I agree, Tokis-Phoenix - maybe I'm old-fashioned myself, but it shocks me to see the way dolls are dressed, and I don't think this is a good message to our children. I think also that words are powerful and suggestive, so I also agree with taking out the "Lolita" beds (this is the first I've heard of it!).

I think even without suggestive clothes, girls in American culture (and it's probably similar in British culture) are taught, even unknowingly by their parents, to try to be attractive to the opposite sex. It's probably an ingrained kind of thinking, but I'd like to see the focus be more on teaching children (girls and boys) to become responsible and compassionate people instead of teaching them to be superficial and obsessed with images and outward appearance.

 

[MadamePapillon]

I don't think half of this is 'unknowing'.

When you make thongs and G-Strings for a nine year old girl or manufacture dolls that look like street-walkers specifically marketed at children...at some point it has to be recognized that, yes, this is deliberate.
Sex sells, everyone knows this, and children are the biggest selling market out there. So how do you combine the two to maximize profits? Why, you over-sexualize children, thus increasing the demand for the over-sexed products.

It may sound outrageous and most people wouldn't want to believe society has fallen so low or that profits mean so much that people would knowingly corrupt children in the name of money. But it's so blatant and in-your-face at this point, I don't think there's any doubt at this point that it is intentional. The 'Lolita bed' is just another example of this. You can't tell me there wasn't a single person in that whole company who didn't know the meaning behind 'lolita'. All you have to do is do a google search of the word to find out...I don't believe it was wholly unintentional.

 

[Mars Man]

I can't help but see a bit too much of what more so than not appears to be emotion stemming from a lacking data base built on the lack of a full and rounded study on sexuality--of course, but not only including human sexuality.

Some points made above reflect hues of truth, but seemingly derived conclusions appear to have added more urban legend-like thinking into them. Neither clothing, or clothing items, nor formats of attachment arrangements on the body, really, make the larger part of sexuality--sex states do that. I say let's all go nude...then we will see what happens. We will still find various degrees, age spans, and body and cultural 'language' showing 'sexuality' or 'sexual attraction' at times, in varying degrees among those of that social group.

Which would any person, male or female be more likely to discover? An excitatory reaction (remember, this is all in the brain, you know, and we are dealing with neuron systems firing and chatting) in their head when they see a 12 year old person walking down the street nude in New York city, or a 12 year old person walking by the river in the heart of the Amazons nude? If you think about that, I'm sure you'll discover that we are basically discussing context--social context.

Most unfortunately today, we are being twisted by the adherents of Political Correctness, into an abstraction which is even further from pure nature itself--of course without going into any philosophical treatises. Also, there is no need whatsoever to compare our social contex of today, in the various social groups, to that of the Victorian age--though some try to demand such. I find this sad, and wish to encourage more critical thinking along these lines. (and that will come in time, just it will take some time, because I am working my way there slowly, in a number of threads)

 

[Rioneru]

I actually expected this to be from Japan...

Somehow, I just don't see the correlation between a bed set being named by a company and the allowance of revealing material being worn by young girls. I doubt any young girl receiving the bed set as a gift is aware of the connotation the title of the bed set holds. I often find the outcry over things like this are backed by slippery slope examples of what they can lead to if allowed.

Now, yes, there is an overwhelming amount of attention focused toward children to make them seem a lot more mature than they really are, but as MadamePapillon stated, "sex sells". If you don't want your children to wear it, don't buy it. I work at a store that is "on the edge" in terms of counter-culture clothing and whatnot and we also sell lingerie. However, I'd say ages 10-17 give us the most sales. Parents need to monitor their children.

I've seen this same argument against video games and the affect on children and as an avid gamer, I can definitely say the parents have a lot to do with how things are processed and "allowed". We can cry shame on businesses or furthermore, society, but the teaching begins at home.

I'm 22 and without kids, but often think like a parent (perhaps a very liberal one, seeing as to how I was raised). My parents never sugar-coated things and me, my sister (17), and brother (6) turned out fine. Rarities we may be, but my point is, we were raised in this same society of easily accessible sex, violence, and other negative influences.

I apologize if I digressed, but I simply mean to draw attention away from blaming society and teaching/protecting our children from home.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I can't help but see a bit too much of what more so than not appears to be emotion stemming from a lacking data base built on the lack of a full and rounded study on sexuality--of course, but not only including human sexuality.
Some points made above reflect hues of truth, but seemingly derived conclusions appear to have added more urban legend-like thinking into them. Neither clothing, or clothing items, nor formats of attachment arrangements on the body, really, make the larger part of sexuality--sex states do that. I say let's all go nude...then we will see what happens. We will still find various degrees, age spans, and body and cultural 'language' showing 'sexuality' or 'sexual attraction' at times, in varying degrees among those of that social group.
Which would any person, male or female be more likely to discover? An excitatory reaction (remember, this is all in the brain, you know, and we are dealing with neuron systems firing and chatting) in their head when they see a 12 year old person walking down the street nude in New York city, or a 12 year old person walking by the river in the heart of the Amazons nude? If you think about that, I'm sure you'll discover that we are basically discussing context--social context.
Most unfortunately today, we are being twisted by the adherents of Political Correctness, into an abstraction which is even further from pure nature itself--of course without going into any philosophical treatises. Also, there is no need whatsoever to compare our social contex of today, in the various social groups, to that of the Victorian age--though some try to demand such. I find this sad, and wish to encourage more critical thinking along these lines. (and that will come in time, just it will take some time, because I am working my way there slowly, in a number of threads)

Lol if we all went nude then we'd be very cold, but seriously though, an adult who is sexually attracted to people of legal shagging age is not going to have sexual thoughts over a 12 year old even if they are naked, but i'm sure if we made all of our children go nude then the paedophiles/perverts would probably have a field day/time of their lives if they were allowed to look at naked children every time they walked down the street.

Its easy to look at things as less clothes covering the body= more sexually suggestive, but its not really the case. Its about how certain types of clothing attract more attention to certain parts of the body- case and point, a lot of guys would probably say that a woman wearing stockings and suspenders with a corset could be sexier than a woman wearing an ordinary bra and panties, even though the corset, stocking and suspenders set covers up more skin.

Yes a lot of it is cultural but when a particular item of clothings purpose is not about practicalibility but rather about emphasizing certain features of the body which are quite sexual then you could easily say it is not right to dress young children in such clothes, since it would be wrong to try and highlight the features of a child in a sexual way. Parents should do their upmost to protect their children from perverts/pedophiles, and i would say part of that is about not letting their children dress up as eye candy for such people.

Seriously Mars Man, if you had a little girl would you buy her Bratz dolls or let her wear sexually suggestive underwear or low cut tops etc? How strict would you be about such things?

 

[Rioneru]

Neither clothing, or clothing items, nor formats of attachment arrangements on the body, really, make the larger part of sexuality--sex states do that. I say let's all go nude...then we will see what happens. We will still find various degrees, age spans, and body and cultural 'language' showing 'sexuality' or 'sexual attraction' at times, in varying degrees among those of that social group.
Which would any person, male or female be more likely to discover? An excitatory reaction (remember, this is all in the brain, you know, and we are dealing with neuron systems firing and chatting) in their head when they see a 12 year old person walking down the street nude in New York city, or a 12 year old person walking by the river in the heart of the Amazons nude? If you think about that, I'm sure you'll discover that we are basically discussing context--social context.
Most unfortunately today, we are being twisted by the adherents of Political Correctness, into an abstraction which is even further from pure nature itself--of course without going into any philosophical treatises. Also, there is no need whatsoever to compare our social contex of today, in the various social groups, to that of the Victorian age--though some try to demand such. I find this sad, and wish to encourage more critical thinking along these lines. (and that will come in time, just it will take some time, because I am working my way there slowly, in a number of threads)

I believe I understand what you're saying, Mars_Man. So, the attachments or features that only seem to encompass sexuality are actually surface? In actuality, what makes us tick (sexually) is nature at work?

Of course, within the context of location, a young girl nude in the Amazons or Africa is nowhere near as jarring as one walking the streets of a major city, but wouldn't the difference lie in the excitatory responses being between arousal and being appalled? It sounded to me that given the level of disapproval in this thread that most parents wouldn't want their children seen as sexual objects, as well as looked down upon in society.

I'm just curious as to what you think society should be leaning towards concerning young women, if anything at all? I didn't seem to catch that in your post. ☝

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Somehow, I just don't see the correlation between a bed set being named by a company and the allowance of revealing material being worn by young girls. I doubt any young girl receiving the bed set as a gift is aware of the connotation the title of the bed set holds. I often find the outcry over things like this are backed by slippery slope examples of what they can lead to if allowed.

When it comes to the correlation between the bed set and parents allowing to let their girls wear revealing clothes, a lot of it is about questioning why the parents would want to buy such things for their children and why a family company would want to sell products for children which have a strong history with child sex or adult pornography industries- on a moral point of view, anyone who is against child sex and pedophiles should not want to give their children things which are symbolic of such things amongst other stuff, just like how a vegan against the killing of animals would not want to buy leather/animal skin products etc.

You're right, a young girl of lets say 10 years old probably has no idea about the association of Lolita with child porn industries, but on the same point, the same girl of 10 years also probably has little idea of the meanings of the very sexually suggestive clothes her Bratz dolls wear and that she wants to wear herself. But does ignorance make it right? I don't think so.
However the parents must realize the meanings of such things, and since one of the many duties of a parent is to protect their children against people like perverts/pedophiles, you could seriously question the intentions of parents who let their little girls wear very sexually revealing clothes (and so making them eye candy for perverts/pedophiles), just as you could question why on earth a parent would want to buy Lolita merchandise for their little girls considering the origins and history of the Lolita brand name etc.

Now, yes, there is an overwhelming amount of attention focused toward children to make them seem a lot more mature than they really are, but as MadamePapillon stated, "sex sells". If you don't want your children to wear it, don't buy it. I work at a store that is "on the edge" in terms of counter-culture clothing and whatnot and we also sell lingerie. However, I'd say ages 10-17 give us the most sales. Parents need to monitor their children.

Its not just about that though, its also about what you want in the society you live in- we all work together for the greater good of our societies to make them better places, what kind of image though do we project to foreign countries though if we encourage or turn a blind eye to things that sexualise our children?? Surely you have feelings about whether you are happy or not with these current state of affairs in your society, even if they don't directly affect you because you have no children of your own?

I've seen this same argument against video games and the affect on children and as an avid gamer, I can definitely say the parents have a lot to do with how things are processed and "allowed". We can cry shame on businesses or furthermore, society, but the teaching begins at home.

I don't think this is like the video game thing though. The video game argument is about how violent video games supposedly create violent children (which i disagree with)- the argument here is not about that dressing children up in sexy clothes means that they'll grow up to be ****** or something, no, but rather the arguments here about questioning the incentives/morals/values of the parents and companies and our society as a whole who tolerate or encourage these things, and how these things will effect the safety of our children or their self image as they grow up etc etc.

 

[Rioneru]

I see your points, Tokis-Phoenix and agree with many of them. I suppose my standpoint is more of asking myself, "What the hell were her parents thinking??" and "Are they even aware she's out of the house like that??". I realize there are many predators in this world and they are often born out of societal construction, but I realize there are many things in the world that aren't going to change or may not, and the best I can do is make sure my children are well-educated and safe.

 

[Haruspex]

Ok, now thingk about it. Lolita is a female name ain't it? It has nothing to do with Vladimir Nabokov, really. Someone who's got a super dirty mind will think that "Yeah, its so rotten, ahmygawd." But thats like having a grudge against that poor name.
Someone who's called Stakhanov must be a communist in that case? And people must change their names, because Stakhanov suggest that the person is communist and wants to destabilize his country, so that bad for children.
Face it, Lolita is a name, you're swinging in the air with your swords.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Ok, now thing about it. Lolita is a female name ain't it? It has nothing to do with Vladimir Nabokov, really.

Although that's technically true, it's an over-simplification. In public consciousness, Lolita has everything to do with Nabokov's character. When a name gains an association it's hard to divorce it from those connotations. I'll bet Lolita is a lot less popular as a girl's name than it was before 1955. If your surname was Manson, would you call your son Charles? Before I was married I shared my name with a famous person, and almost everyone commented on it.

I think whoever named this furniture should have foreseen that people would be upset by it. Perhaps they did foresee it, and hoped that the hype would help generate sales - assuming you can still buy it somewhere.

 

[Mars Man]

Well, let me see if I can make some of this more visible--unclothe it a bit more, and leave the naked truth before us, as much as possible.

I am sure that no one would deny that there is not a single living animal--from flatworm to human, that does not have a reproductive strategy. Then, likewise, I am certain that all the mammals have the general male/female (small gamate/large gamate respectively) copulation medium. Then there is very, very little doubt that the homo sapien developed the conbined monogamy/harm/promiscuity strategy.

OK...so there is hardly a single member of the homo sapien group which does not have a rather fully developed sex organ--be that in-board or out-board. (to borrow a little small boat terminology) No problem there, right? Then, let's not forget, that there is the biological sex state too.

Now my brain does not have any special maps (firing arrangements) that go off, pushed by my hypothalamus and PEA, testosterone, dopamine and norepinephrine, among other peptides and signaling chemicals, when I see a naked male human. Although I can see the sex organ, the body, the breasts and nipples, I have no excitatory reaction although I am seeing sexual features, you see. Now some genetic males with feminine brain sex states, will get some excitatory reaction there...as we know. Most genetic females with fully female brain sex states wouldn't so much either...as the female doesn't use visual processes so much in excitatory reactions.

What is sexy about a male? What is sexy about a female? Is the average middle class male walking down the street in Paris going to have a reaction of sexual interest in a female because of the beauty of the sticks that pierce her nose and upper lip? or the extension plate that causes her lip to protrude? or the number of rings which stretch her neck even longer than the other girls? What is it, that we can put on the body, that makes the body itself cause related-to-sexual-attachment excitement in the brain of another person having the other sex organ?

Now, I just realised that as usual, I simply cannot do this in one post. There is just SO much. I'll continue. The aim is to shed light on why this matter at hand, is also simply socially constructed, and is not a matter of 'pure' natural fact. And that for that reason, there is no real concern. Also, my intent is to show how looseness of language can mislead and give false impressions in such cases. I'll post this much for now.

 

[Mars Man]

I will recall the documentary here on TV, in Japan--not NHK--which was about an exchange of students from Europe (Germany, I believe?) with some in Africa. Jumping the details, the girls from Africa eventually went to Europe to visit those who had first gone down there. They performed a dance, which at least one or two of the girls from Europe joined in with, for a small gathering. It is a cultural dance, and the peak of the dance is performed topless, with a rather strong swaying of the breasts. All the girls joined in, and it was of course not blotted out by the TV broadcasting company--this is Japan, not the US.

Sure, some of the guys watching may have felt a reaction--I probably would have to some degree too--but mostly it was art. It was culture. It was beauty. So what in the world was the big deal about Janet Jackson?

Tokis-Phoenix and Rioneru have both hit the nail on the head ! It is art. It is an idea. It is something that the human, being as big brained as it is (often to disasterous results) has created by the function of the social groups which have played a major role in developing the many of the historical legal and moral ideologies that still hold sway. From Europe, to the Americas and other colonial locations it was the Judeo-Christian ideologies. From 6th century Arabia, it was the Islamic ideologies.

Tokis-Phoenix said, "Its easy to look at things as less clothes covering the body= more sexually suggestive, but its not really the case. Its about how certain types of clothing attract more attention to certain parts of the body- case and point, a lot of guys would probably say that a woman wearing stockings and suspenders with a corset could be sexier than a woman wearing an ordinary bra and panties, even though the corset, stocking and suspenders set covers up more skin."

That's exactly the point--although it's not about directing attention to certain parts of the body, because, as you correctly pointed out, the latter covers more than the former. It's a matter of a concept. Of course it is a certain percentage of males who would react as such, but there would be other percentages that did to lesser degrees or, like myself, not at all. To me it doesn't equate sexuality in itself, as not style of dressing does.

Reoneru said," Of course, within the context of location, a young girl nude in the Amazons or Africa is nowhere near as jarring as one walking the streets of a major city, but wouldn't the difference lie in the excitatory responses being between arousal and being appalled?"

Yes, both mental reactions would be due to the same thing--social construct and context, rather than location alone. This is true because going up is of no great concern, but going down is.

Take a tribe of Yanomamo people or Mehinaku, or !Kung, to Little Rock, Arkansas (USA) and let them strole around town getting their eye's filled (of course in the same state as they would naturally at home) and they'd probably have little problem with all the people walking around with their bodies hidden. Take a group from a couple of communities from around the USA (for example) down there, and you'll surely find those very brain maps firing up--arousal (mostly by the males--due to greater visual dependence) and shock (mostly by the females--due to greater selective instinct in sexual selection).

There is still more to touch on, points made which I wish to come back to later (and will), but for now let me just reply to this one question by Tokis chan, in her #7 post.

I do have a daughter, basically. I didn't raise her all her life, though, due to the mother's wishes, but have met her often in the past three years. ( I have helped the population of Japan increase by 5) And to be honest, if she were young now, and were to want such doll outfits, or dolls dressed like that (in case they do not have wardrobe) I would probably buy it for her, because I know that it means nothing other than artistic expression, and because she would know about sexuality and the balance of nature already--I mean, where did I come from questions get answered exactly and honestly, (but of course in wording that a person of that age could understand) and so forth and so on.

 

[Sarapva]

You're right, a young girl of lets say 10 years old probably has no idea about the association of Lolita with child porn industries, but on the same point, the same girl of 10 years also probably has little idea of the meanings of the very sexually suggestive clothes her Bratz dolls wear and that she wants to wear herself. But does ignorance make it right? I don't think so.....

....rather the arguments here about questioning the incentives/morals/values of the parents and companies and our society as a whole who tolerate or encourage these things, and how these things will effect the safety of our children or their self image as they grow up etc etc.

I think T.P. sums it up well here. Even with an intellectual knowledge of how the brain works in attractions, etc., the subconscious mind is susceptible to suggestions. I think it's very irresponsible of companies and advertising to use this method on people (not just on children) to sell things. It's a sign of how degraded our societies have become when manipulating people to make money is thought of as the norm.

Maybe I'm a prude (though this doesn't come from a religious belief), but I think we should be teaching our children to be conservative and modest, not to flaunt and try to manipulate and control others' reactions by how we dress, etc. It seems to be a vicious cycle.

 

[Haruspex]

Well, some kids are destined to do moronic things, and it can't be helped. With or without that Lolita bed, certain children are screwed in the head.

 

[Mike Cash]

In further news, knee-jerk Americans have declared that all women named Monica must change their names to Gertrude.

 

[Haruspex]

Well all this makes me think. Would you people mock a parent who names her child Lolita?
The question is not how dirty the name is, its a simple little "test" to show how many profane thoughts one's mind contains.
Besides, there is no one forcing people to buy the bed, its their decision. So if there are people who are rational enough to ignore whatever name poor bed bears, why shouldn't they buy it? Just who is the elevated being who decided that the name Lolita is a taint? Who is the smart person making these big decisions that certain terms and names should be considered filthy?
Lets imagine, I have a child. I decide to buy my daughter a new bed one day, and it happens to be one named Lolita. Now, I have bought the bed, and my daughter sleeps in that very bed called Lolita for years. Eventually, I buy her a new bed once the old Lolita bed becomes small or whatever. She forgets about the bed, grows up, and one day, when looking through old belongings in the cellar, she find her old bed and reads Lolita in one of its corners.
You've read the above little tale right?
Did you even once read:
-porno
-preteen
-pedophile
-sex
-erotica
-child porn?
Tell me, did you even once encountered these terms in that little story? NO.
Why? Because by the time the child learns the meaning of the term, she will be able to comprehend it.
Once again, there's no one forcing you to buy the bed.

 

[Mars Man]

Well, jumping all the in between, then, there is no sound argument against sexuality, and the human 'dressing' or eroticism of this state. Putting subliminal, and excessive application of, thus explotation of human behavior traits for personal gain (advertising) on the side--since we will find it used over a very large spectrum (thus common), by many kinds of people in many situations over history; not nearly only regarding the sexual attribute--we can focus on the issue of social context and ideology.

It is more natural, in the basic human build, that the female is more cautious sexually--even though I really shouldn't have to say that; it should be a more widespread matter of education (and I have and am presenting that on the Love, Marriage, & Sex thread). For that reason, in any social context we will find that general tendency in the female...human and non-human, post industrial social groups and primative social groups. This is settled knowledge.

Then, it is without mistake, that what is left is the religio-social schema, and how that has historically conditioned a set mentality on its own. It is very much for this reason, Sarapva san, that you have such insistence on modesty, to the degree that you do. If you had grown up on the highlands of Paupa New Guinea, your concept of modesty would surely have been very, very different from what it is now. If you had lived as a woman among the early clans of Grecian peoples, you would have had a largely different view of what is modest--so forth and so on...many examples here.

What I am arguing for on several fronts, is education--pure, unbias, and as balanced as possible education. In some parts of the world, religio-social schema has conditioned a pattern of thought whereby even 'freethinking-like' woman express the desire, seemingly to them, on their own, to wear a head scarf, or a full headdress--does pure nature require that in some biological, genetically function? Of course not. And there are a number of examples here too. (I'm saving room and post quantity, but the examples are all there and say the exact same thing.)

Would the average 'then-middle-class' male break out in a 'cold sweat' when passed on the path by a couple of girls, mid-section almost fully exposed, wearing only a halter-top-like breast covering with only a somewhat sheer piece of cloth swung across one shoulder covering that in 17th century India? Far more likely, not. What would become of such girls if they suddenly appeared on the streets of Birmingham, Alabama in the early 20th century? Arrest and charges would have been swift, at the least. In Saudia Arabia today? 'Soft' stoning then arrest?

Is there any universal, natural reason why it is wrong or unacceptable to have a sexual state? Of course there is not. Is there any model by which we can compare against nature at large, and make any degree of absolute claim that sexual state comes after being homo sapien? To think there would be is irrational and lacking in experience. To be male and female and sexually focused is nature's plan for the life force--you know, the birds and the bees; so forth and so on.

As a world society, free from the burden of religio-social antiques which are largely steeped in ignorance, we should be teaching our children to be responsible, and well balanced humans--humans that will continue the life force (as that is the whole game, you see). As a world society, we need to work on neutralizing the mentality which causes such nonsense as ill-favor of a certain name simple due totally disconnected association of sound and history. (A name has a sound, that sound is a symbol, that symbol is of the referent. A single, non-exchangable referent locked in history cannot be replicated nor multiplied--especially so in cases of non-historical people, like our Lolita.)

So I say, get over it people! Dress is mostly an art form. The construction of the symbol of dress, is in the mind's eye. The mind's eye, in general, is conditioned by social construct. To that degree, each varying social group can and usually does have differening conditionings, and different ways of seeing. Through education and well balanced practice, eventually we can possibly come up with a world society that has removed most of the associations based on ignorance, lack of experience, and superstition.



ps: Sexual perversion in the way of pedophilia is not nearly as common as it tends to have been shown in this thread , and is not something new, either. And yet, in social groups where female modesty is, for example, simply the waist band--and that alone in the way of body coverage--there is statistically even less.

(as a side note, in one study, it was mentioned as a point of interest, that a young adult girl among a number of primative social groups would be just as shy, and feel just as compromised with such simple body adornment as, for example, the waist band, being removed in front of a stranger, as the average industralized nation's young adult female would be in removing her clothing in front of a stranger.)

 

[Sarapva]

I think I see what you're saying, Mars Man - that our ideas of what is appropriate and what constitutes modesty or "showy" behavior is cultural. But within each culture there are acceptable and unacceptable ways of behaving and dressing (even in cultures where people are naked most of the time there are probably ways of "shocking" each other, maybe by putting on a certain type of clothes in a certain way). Within each culture there will be strong reactions to attention-seeking behavior, whether the reactions are positive or not.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but that's about as far as I can think about it right now.

 

[magevampjoe]

I disagree with this article. A bed is named something. So what? Little girls aren't going to know what it means, so they won't all have 'fun', seeing as many have heard of 'it' but don't really know what 'it' is.

I disagree with little girls wearing 'sexy' clothes. My sister is 8 and she wears them. It is because she sees pop groups like pussy cats / spice curls / britney scythe or whatever the hell they are called. They want to be like these idols, so they wear the same clothes. Her major thing to get to wear them is 'everyone else wears this stuff!!!'.

DOWN WITH PLASTIC AND GIRL POP GROUP BANDS THAT PORTRAY THIS STUFF!

 

[bakaKanadajin]

I think that in principle it should be possible in a society with what we'd like to consider high moral standards (our society) for a girl to wear a piece of clothing or play with a certain toy or what have you, and not be viewed as a part of the sexual arousal industrial machine. As the OP's intentions state, however, the fact that the child is part of this cycle of consumerist, opportunistic sexual gratification in all its various forms and outlets, is appauling. So where do we draw the line between freedom and imposition?

As was pointed out by Mars Man, context is everything. Had that book never been written and that stigma attached, the bed's name wouldn't matter. Several sociocultural phenomena may crop up over the next few years that will suddenly call into question other practices, actions, words, ideas, etc., because retroactively they are now participating in the early sexualization of youth. Even pants that say 'Barbie' or 'Bambi' across the seat in glitter can be interpreted by conservatives as unhelpful because Barbie is a general term which endows images of blondness, bustyness, extremely outdated ideas of femininity, etc., and Bambi is a cliche name for female entertainers or adult industry movie stars, whereas a few years prior it was a traditionally accepted name brand of toy and/or story character.

So, as Mars Man said, clearly, there's a lot of cultural relativism there. Moreover, this discussion is taking place in a modern setting; we the participants are inextricably linked to the models of our times and do not have the sage experience of knowing modern sexuality as it existed throughout the ages, back when it too was modern.

For example, Romans and Greeks routinely and openly professed love for the young, it was a celebrated part of some of their cultural practices. The use of 'virgin' itself in religious texts carries with it an idea of youth, purity, unspoiled and untouched innocence, etc., and is even a reward or promised land of sorts in some faiths.

Also don't forget, humans are hard wired as was pointed out; the simple act of viewing a female body in any clothing or situation can impart excitement and arousal to the viewer, so long as at first glance she appears to be of breeding age. If she is, then she is going to naturally arouse the viewer on some primal level, it's completely unavoidable. Social conditioning dictates however that other signals and cues are more important and are layered on top - things like make up, perfume, language, etc., so we have the modern day courting rituals that we've all come to know and love and accept as 'normal' possibly at odds with what we'd be doing if we were still in the trees. We only domesticated ourselves 10,000 years ago really, compared to millions of years of evolution.

I think I agree with the OP's original intent, although I think the ban of this product is only one superficial slice of the pie. It's a circle perpetuated by both sides. Our own over-sexualization is what young people wish to emulate, just like we emulated everything from knights and superheros to every day jobs like police and fire services and even habits like smoking or swearing back in the days before this new wave of sexuality. Young people look up to us, and see us unfortunately wasting our time diddling ourselves to internet porn, watching sexual movies on TV, hearing about movie stars releasing secret sex tapes amidst popular press treatment vs. scandalous or negative treatment, dressing like hookers (well not me )etc.

If we set ourselves up as better role models, we do not see ourselves reflected in our children negatively. If they do not emulate us negatively, we do not create a chance to sell them what they think they want and perpetuate the cycle. But even if we brought the current level of over-sexed culture and background noise down to a more acceptable level, there'd still be problems. The age of permission for having sex varies from the low teens to 18 or higher, clearly we can't decide when it's ok to start sleeping with people or when they're ready. Ultimately, this kind of thing has been going on for ages.

 

[Goldiegirl]

Kids can be taught about sex and where they "came from". I don't think that means in any way that I would ever buy them toys or clothes that were overtly sexual. I also wouldn't buy them gothic clothes or anything that I don't approve of. I am the parent, I make the money, so I get to chose. I am disgusted when I see pre-teens dressed up in racy clothes that even I wouldn't wear. Sure you can say they know about the birds and the bees but do they know how to defend themselves from the pressure of looking older than their age. Do they understand the actual visual statement they are making? I think they might think they look like a cute braatz doll but to a predator they look very appealing. I remember one pedophile said his 5 year old neighbor girl was "asking for it", why would you even possibly put your child in that kind of danger?

 

[Sarapva]

I remember one pedophile said his 5 year old neighbor girl was "asking for it", why would you even possibly put your child in that kind of danger?

That's right - this is something "normal" people don't realize, and I didn't realize until I'd worked at a psychiatric hospital. Small children are objects of attraction more than you'd think. My sister used to let her daughter run around outside with no clothes on when she was 2 or 3 years old, thinking that such a small child is not a sexual interest to anyone. I didn't know then what I do now, or I would have warned her against that.

Posted by bakaKanadajin:

...the simple act of viewing a female body in any clothing or situation can impart excitement and arousal to the viewer, so long as at first glance she appears to be of breeding age. If she is, then she is going to naturally arouse the viewer on some primal level, it's completely unavoidable.

So this means that in some cases culture doesn't come into it.

About the "Lolita" bed being just a name - I know that consciously children wouldn't know what connotations that name has, but it's the subconscious that can be suggestible. Even with little kids who haven't learned the meaning of certain words, there's still something that happens subconsciously. Advertisers have found this out, and now we're all at their mercy.

 

[Chi65]

Also don't forget, humans are hard wired as was pointed out; the simple act of viewing a female body in any clothing or situation can impart excitement and arousal to the viewer, so long as at first glance she appears to be of breeding age. If she is, then she is going to naturally arouse the viewer on some primal level, it's completely unavoidable.

Don't you ever go to a sauna or FKK then, if thats what you think!!

People would have good fun with your completely unavoidable there!