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 t