Kudos to Scarlett, Jessica, and everyone who wrote to Wal-Mart! Feministing on foxnews.com - my day just keeps getting better!

(!!!!!!)
How exciting. I discovered Feministing very recently and from the beginning have been so impressed by the level of engagement by readers/commenters. It's great to be part of such an impassioned community!

Woot!

Great work!

Right on!!!
A nice high point of the day :)

wow, now THAT'S what I'm talkin' bout! Go Scarlett and everyone else who take action on this!

Awesome. :)

And right when I was getting all blustered up about the trolls on the original thread!
Weeee! :) :) :)

Cool effingreat. calling us morons. what does that accomplish.

anyways, the way I see it, feministing achieved something great. So woo hoo to you guys!

Your victory has meaning for me, and I am enjoying it.

Awesome news! I do find it ironic that the Walmart spokesperson is calling them "holiday inspired undies." If you are going to pull something sexist off the shelves I am all for it, but call it like it is!! I mean, like it really is!! Boooo on you walmart!!!

What really bothers me about this whole issue (besides the ick factor, natch) is that Walmart is so quick to censor or block the sale of items that aren't "family friendly." They sell radio edits of CDs (I know, b/c I bought one accidentally before I started boycotting the store), some locations put "racy" magazines like Cosmo in brown paper wrapping, and they flat out refuse to sell items that don't fall in line with the right-wing pro-family propaganda machine. Clearly that's their right. But the reasoning for these actions has always been to "protect children" and to be family friendly. What the hell is family friendly about underwear with prostitution implications? It's like Bill O'Reilly decrying the dirty smutty lesbians on The OC while playing the video over and over and over again...just to point out how dirty it is, you see. Meanwhile of course the same guy owns both channels.

Way to get quoted Jessica and Scarlett. On a right wing news site no less, and they didn't call you humorous feminists? Wow. :)

Yay! That is fantastic!

Jeannao - Jezebel reports that the back says something like "when you have santa", so they were holiday themed. though you are right to assert that that does not preclude them from also being sexist themed.

Also, Blitzgal is so right. I mean, was it really parents who complained as the FOX headline implies? or does Monty count?

When I read that headline, in my head I heard ominous music in the background. "Would you want YOUR daughter wearing these?" dum dum DUMMMMMM

Okay, I just read the Fox article...I was just going to comment as others did that it was Scarlett and Feministing that brought it to Wal-Mart's attention, not the unnamed source called "parents." Ah, Fox. You can always be counted on for bias and lameness!

WELL DONE! FEMINISTING IS THE BEST

Though the FOx headline "Suggestive Panties get Yanked" was pretty darn funny

Wow! How cool! We made a difference.

Disappointed you can't buy a pair for your daughter, g1ward?

Great Job laidies! Now why don't you get Walmart to pull their softcore porno products like SI swimsuit edition, and all their mags like Stuff, Maxim and the rest. It's this kind of junk that leads directly to things like the panties you were so successfull in getting rid of.

ckbro: Stuff went out of business. :)

Yeay! I hope my letter helped, this is what i wrote :) - just to share:

To Whom It May Concern,
I recently noticed a product you are selling in the junior department at which I was appalled. I am referring to a pair of girls’ underwear that reads, “Who needs credit cards…� written across the vagina. Upon immediate reading, I took this underwear to imply that young girls should prostitute themselves for cash. Although I am sure this is not the message you intended to portray when promoting this item, based on Wal-Mart’s high standard of family values and all, marketing these underwear sends a message of girls bodies as commodities. It promulgates the erroneous notion that all girls have to offer is their bodies, oh and sex. Especially since this message was written on the crotch region, I immediately took it to imply that Wal-Mart believes girls’ biggest asset is in between their legs. Not only does this promote the sexualization of children but also the idea that girls and women should use their sexuality to acquire things.

If you do not yet see the severity of this issue, I encourage you to pretend this phrase was written on a pair of boys’ boxers. Could you ever imagine, “Who needs credit cards� written over the crotch where the boy’s penis is intended to be? Although this product would be equally as unacceptable if it were marketed towards boys, it would also never happen.

Sexually charged clothing for junior girls (and boys) is unacceptable and until this item is pulled from Wal-Mart, I will refrain from shopping at Wal-Mart again. I will also make everyone I can aware of this atrocious product.
-Concerned Consumer

(Ok, so what, i lied about the "concerned consumer" part. But Wal-Mart responds better to the business model and my feedback may have more weight if they believe they'd lose a costumer rather than if i notified them that i don't shop at Wal-Mart to begin with...)

Awesome. I just wish we could get results this fast on the trafficking issue.

We have something the feminists and the conservatives can agree on - prostitotting preteens with sexually suggestive phrases on lingerie is over the line! It is the start of a new bipartisanship...

I suspect whoever runs censorship at Wal-Mart never expected to need to monitor the women's junior's underwear buyers. They probably didn't realize underwear comes in more varieties than "Hanes" or "Jockey". There is no chance these would have slipped passed a vigilant bluenose.

Question - context matters, what if these were in some kind of herbal shop or whole foods or whatever, and were made out of hemp? Could you then read it as an anti-consumerist message rather than pron? Because that was my first read, until the whole 'and Wal-Mart would stock that, why?' reaction cut in. (Of course, I'm old enough that I still boggle that it became fashionable to stick a cluster of cherries on little girls' underwear. I half expected to see a knockoff version where the cherries were split open.)

I love that FOX described them as "hipster briefs." No wonder nobody wants to be a hipster.

This is fantastic - kudos to everyone who worked to get these "yanked."

I have to say I'm really getting tired of the argument "don't you ladies have something better to complain about?" That is not a real argument, and besides, when we "complain" about our reproductive rights being taken away, rape, inequality, violence against women - it's not our fault that Fox "news" doesn't see those issues as front-page headline worthy as a pair of underpants.

Every little piece of hostility adds up to a culture, and if we have to take it apart one pair of inappropriate panties at a time, so be it.

We spend a lot of our time "complaining" about a wide variety of inequalities - any small victory that makes the world a less hostile place for women and girls is a good thing. It's called activism for positive change. I just don't see why some people can't understand why sexualizing "juniors" is a bad thing.

Way to go Scarlett and Jessica! And everyone who wrote in to Wal-mart!

Wow, a lot of anti "right wing" remarks. I had hoped a "feminist" website would be at least one place women could avoid sounding exactly alike.
Perhaps I was wrong. Groupthink lurks everywhere, it seems, even where diversity and tolerance are the trendy mantra of the day.

In any case, when I went shopping with some friends who were strippers (it was college, I was young, free, and dumb), you'd have to go to specialty stores to get the skank-wear you can now buy at Target, Macy's, and Walmart.

Parents on both sides of the ideological spectrum have completely dropped the ball.

I know that, in the grand scheme of things, this is really a minor victory, but congratulations on taking such swift and effective action. It's a shame that your victory has, in a sense, been slightly hijacked by right-wing 'moral' campaigners, though.

As illustrated by the post above, my case rests.

I thought that denegrating an entire group of people based on the actions of a few was called "prejudice."

No wonder right wingers want to keep their guns.

Ravenhaired maid:
Wow, a lot of anti "right wing" remarks. I had hoped a "feminist" website would be at least one place women could avoid sounding exactly alike.
Perhaps I was wrong. Groupthink lurks everywhere, it seems, even where diversity and tolerance are the trendy mantra of the day.

This is not a "feminist" web-site. This is a feminist web-site. Scare quotes are not necessary.

Does it surprise you to find that feminists are mostly liberal? No group-think necessary there. Usually when a person decides that things like equality are important that person is also going to discover that they are liberal. And that person is also likely to independently discover that right-wing people largely oppose any social movement that would alter the existing power structure. Go figure.

"Trendy mantra of the day" sounds like a great idea for a new feature, by the way. May I suggest "STFU" as the first trendy mantra? Just for you?

How original: Hurling insults that those who disagree with you.
Awww, whatcha gonna do now? Beat me up after school? LOL Because that's the intellectual level you've aspired to :))

It's quite clear that feminism shouldn't be defined by narrow minded creatures like yourself, who can't even treat others who point out the glaring flaws of such thinking with respect.
I'm not a liberal yet I believe in equality, and you obviously can't handle anything threatening your vile worldview in a way that's not steeped in hate, or that requires you to step outside that worldview.

Some "liberal" you are. You're a disgrace to the very word.

Please, go back to your bong, because it can certainly no longer harm your brain.

Enter....troll-be-gone! Buh-bye.

Great! Back to my bong...

What makes the troll think everyone who's "anti-right-wing" is exactly the same?
Obviously the right-wing is very anti-feminist; of course feminists are going to oppose wingers. They don't promote pro-woman policies or attitudes. Kind of a no-brainer. So off with my bong I go.

Trolls make me giggle a little. Boo trolls. Hooray bongs!
Anyway, good job on the swift victory.

Awesome :)

One small step for feminists!

I must admit to some surprise. I've seen things work on the local level, but grassroots on the national level? Within days? I cannot cite another example.

Very, very good work. I'll need to find the story myself and learn why Wal-Mart caved, since they sold them to begin with.

I disagree with the product, but I do not think that people should be celebrating this type of censorship. In effect, you are attempting to force your own morality onto the majority whether they like it or not. Just because you disagree with something doesn't necessarily give you the right to censor other people for attempting to sell products like this.

If this type of merchandise is unacceptable enough to be pulled from the shelves, what other products should be censored as well? Should the work of Nietzsche be censored, for example, because of his misogynistic tone that is embedded in his philosophical writing? Where do you draw the line, exactly?

I am a fully grown adult, and I don’t appreciate having complete strangers tell me what I can and cannot purchase, simply because they don’t like it themselves. Who among you thinks that you are qualified to decide for me what I can and cannot read? Or what clothing I may wear? Do ANY of you think you are qualified to make such decisions on my behalf?

Entropy, this is not censorship but removal of hate-speech from CHILDREN'S popular culture. No one is promoting erasing a history of sexism by censoring books. This is the removal of a product that promotes a hateful message about the bodies of teenagers. This is asking a corporation to take responsibility for the types of hateful messages about marginalized groups that it is promoting to the world by selling a hateful product. One, no is promoting a banning of books. And two, and this point is more controversial on a number of levels, there is a difference between free speech and hate speech.

Not to mention that it is also asking a private corporation to take responsibility for the messages it promotes, not a government censorship. Besides, Wal-mart already does this by hand-picking the types of music it finds "family friendly." If anything, the feministing readers asked Wal-mart to extend their notion of family to include positive messages about sexuality for teenage girls.

Yeah, maybe it makes me a poor civil libretarian, but I think Wal-Mart's product decisions should NOT be afforded the same protections as genuine non-corporate speech.

Beside which, I hardly see how Wal-Mart voluntarily pulling the items is "censorship."

Entropy, are you saying that you want to wear a pair of children's panties with sexually suggestive messages on them?

Was danger that heads would have started exploding over at Fox the reason the first line of the article couldn't just read:
"Suggestive pink Santa panties targeting young girls are being removed from Wal-Mart stores after FEMINISTS objected to the offensive undergarments." ?
Because for some reason they accidentally wrote "parents" instead.

"I disagree with the product, but I do not think that people should be celebrating this type of censorship. In effect, you are attempting to force your own morality onto the majority whether they like it or not. Just because you disagree with something doesn't necessarily give you the right to censor other people for attempting to sell products like this."

I want to understand the sentiment, but I see the important difference as being Wal-Mart, the retail giant with one of the world's wealthiest families, the largest private employer in the US, always had a choice. Government censorship or fascist book burning is a clear denial of choice. Wal-Mart could easily have brushed the complaints off and waited for picketers, a national boycott, or an actual lawsuit they would probably win anyway.

Wal-Mart therefore deserves a belated thank you in this one instance. Now I'm off to buy some canned cat food, some rabbit leashes and a sack of guinea pig feed. RIP, Sam.

Congradulations on getting the subtly sexist panties off the shelves on Shit-Mart. Now,if only we can unionize it, get listenable music, and promote more women to authoritve positions then we will be accomplishing something.

Hijack: I'd forgotten about that. Women being denied management positions because they cannot fill BS requirements like hoisting large sacks of dog food and putting it on the shelves. Costco and Home Depot are clever. They have these wonderful inventions called "forklifts" that can move entire pallets and crates. We're not talking about firefighters climbing the South Tower with a hundred pounds of gear, a mask, and fifty feet of hose here.

I'm a man, but I can't be expected to lift or transport a patient who weighs more than myself, either. Not if I want to keep my back till retirement. That's why there are three to six people called "clinical assistants," backboards, electronic hoists, wheeled chairs and beds, and up to six compassionate coworkers called "nurses." You know, to help out.

I am thrilled. IT CAN BE DONE! Great work.

"Entropy, this is not censorship but removal of hate-speech from CHILDREN'S popular culture."

The underlying premise behind this protest revolves around attempting to define what is and what is not acceptable for women – not just children. Also, hate-speech seems to be invoked far too quickly, especially in this case. I will explain why later.

"No one is promoting erasing a history of sexism by censoring books."

I gave two examples, one which parallels this discussion. Censorship takes many forms, not the least of which via government intervention. Film-makers, for example, try very hard to create a film that does not get rated "NC-17". Now you may be thinking that a rating system appears rather harmless, except for the fact that no movie theatre nowadays will show movies with that rating; this is an effective form of censorship because the MPAA can now effectively regulate what type of content people are exposed to. Whether or not the people involved are private corporations makes no difference – it is a form of censorship, which denies widespread access to a particular type of content. Banning clothing is a parallel example of this.

"This is the removal of a product that promotes a hateful message about the bodies of teenagers. This is asking a corporation to take responsibility for the types of hateful messages about marginalized groups that it is promoting to the world by selling a hateful product."

The objection I am raising involves what constitutes "hateful" and what doesn’t. You have your own definition of what hate-speech is, and I have mine. Which one of us is correct? According to you (and other readers of this site), your own subjective interpretation of that clothing is more important than everyone elses – so much so, in fact, that you are attempting to ban the sale of that clothing. Is it possible that some people find this clothing objectionable, but not "hateful" in any meaningful sense of the word? If that is the case, then it is also possible that people are not willing to sacrifice the liberties of our neighbors in order to pursue an ideological goal – in this case, banning the transmission of certain types of content through clothing (or through books, or through television, etc).

"Not to mention that it is also asking a private corporation to take responsibility for the messages it promotes, not a government censorship. Besides, Wal-mart already does this by hand-picking the types of music it finds "family friendly." If anything, the feministing readers asked Wal-mart to extend their notion of family to include positive messages about sexuality for teenage girls."

Please see the above point regarding government censorship. Just because this doesn’t involve the government does not mean that it is not a form of censorship. I also do not agree with Wal-Mart’s policy of "family-friendliness". If we take the logic that Wal-Mart employs to its conclusion, we might one day see a world where only certain types of products are able to be bought, while anything found to be unacceptable by even a small group of people is unable to be sold at all.

In order to effectively argue for this type of behavior, you must at a minimum demonstrate the following:

1. Exposing young girls to content of this type will alter their perception of the world in a negative way.
2. The long term effects of exposure to stereotypes of this sort will ingrain a particular type of mentality into the child.

If the above points can be shown conclusively then the argument will have some credibility. I do not think that merely exposing children to words printed on a piece of clothing will have that type of effect. If you can demonstrate that it does, then I will agree that it is hate-speech. I have confidence that a child wearing this type of clothing will not have their entire world-view altered to the point where they will emulate the stereotype presented in this case. Yes, there is a larger culture that promotes a negative attitude toward women, but I don’t think banning clothing, or books, or television shows is the correct way to make an impact on society. I find it hypocritical.

Wow, that's a lot of typing.

Entropy:

Maybe you should organize a bunch of people and have them write letters asking Wal-Mart to restock panties that equated teenage girl sexuality with material gifts because other wise they are caving to feminist censorship.

Keep on fighting the good fight my man.

I love that every time I speak up on subjects related to misogyny some concerned citizen accuses me of Teh Censorship!

It's interesting. I can have an opinion about almost any other subject and express that opinion without such accusations. I can make endless numbers of suggestions about content and value in almost any other circumstance. But my opinion on the subject of teen girls being sexualized is out of bounds, and apparently I'm a bad liberal for not... censoring myself more effectively.

So interesting. My refusal to censor myself is censorship. Why doesn't that make the slightest bit of sense?

Okay, I just gotta...

"... I am referring to a pair of girls’ underwear that reads, “Who needs credit cards…� written across the vagina."

No. No. No. It was *not* written across the vagina. HELL no. It was not even written across the material covering the vagina. The vagina is *internal*. Vaginas are not shaved, are not tattooed (though I suppose it's possible), are not covered by material, etc. In short, vulva != vagina.

*sigh* I did not expect to run across that one on a feminist blog.

Here's what I find interesting:

Whenever some misogynist, sexist piece of crap comes down the pike, corporations and their defenders shrug their shoulders and say "Hey, we're just giving the people what they want! If nobody bought these, we wouldn't make them! Don't blame us!"

But then when we organize a protest that indicates that hey, we as consumers and "the people" don't want to buy this crap, and in response, the corporation pulls the item in question-we're accused of censorship.

So...corporations should respond to what people want...unless those people are feminists, in which case we should just keep our mouths shut?

Apparently, EG. At least that's what Entropy seems to have said, and Entropy typed so much that there must have been a valid point in there somewhere.

Shorter Entropy:
Uppity womenz who don't censor themselves are censoring me! Bad womenz!

EG,
I wont pretend to speak for entropy but are you entirely sure your views represent the "people" as you say in your post?

I dont know yet where I stand on this issue other than I dont like it being marketed and sold to young women, adults would be a different story. It is becoming so difficult to keep items (not specfically this one) that adults should have access to if they wish but also restrict them from children.
How can you be so sure your views represent the thoughts and feelings of the American people? I would assume they do but we dont know.
We see on this blog often the reaction of feminists to actions taken by vocal "conservative" groups imposing their worldview on the greater society, this specific issue perhaps isnt the best platform to raise this question on but it does raise questions in my mind.

*sigh*

The panties are not being banned. Banning would be "nobody is allowed to sell these, anywhere, ever, and if you do you may be arrested and fined".

This is not a freedom of speech issue any more than a radio station firing a particular DJ is. Freedom of speech means that the government cannot punish you for saying certain things -- it does not mean that you automatically get a paid forum to say those things. And if a company thinks that keeping you on their payroll is going to cause them to lose listeners and therefore revenue, they are perfectly within their rights to fire you.

Likewise, just because you're allowed to create panties implying that tween girls have a "moneypot" inside does not give you the right to have said panties sold in major department stores.

Dananddanica: And if we were strong-arming our thoughts and feelings into legislation regardless of whether we represent the majority of Americans, that would be a problem. (Unless we were whacko fundies, who seem to be given a pass on all that.) However, since it was a corporation, in whose best interest it is to cater to the people who speak up the loudest, since they are typically the ones who will have the greatest effect, then I don't see what the problem is. We didn't stage a coup. No one overtook Walmart headquarters and forced them at gunpoint to take the underwear off the shelves. They wouldn't have done it if they only received ten angry emails. They weighed cost/benefit along with crappy publicity, and decided it was in their best interest to stop selling the item.

And honestly, I don't care if my desire to have women be treated like human beings, with respect and decency represents society as a whole. If society is corrupt and inhumane, do we say, oh wells. If we could only get a majority of people to do the ethical thing...guess I won't try to assert that it's wrong to treat people that way? Of course not. But I'm glad to see that someone is trying to defend democracy here. Your patriotism is a glorious thing to behold. Now what exactly is the etymology of patriot again?

"No wonder right wingers want to keep their guns."

Oh that's cute. Th'ats pretty much making it clear that shes thinks right wingers want to kill those who don't agree with them. Exactly what is there to take seriously?

Anyway, to everyone who wrote letters, well done.

Day-yamn! I shoulda rushed out and bought a bunch of 'em -- bet they'll fetch a pretty penny on eBay now...OW!!! Just kidding!!! Just kidding!!!

People really need to get a grip on what constitutes censorship and what it means to "ban" something.

We at Feministing did not "ban" anything. We do not have the power to do that. We are not the government. We have no authority to "ban" WalMart from selling anything.

We expressed our opinions, and WalMart willingly decided to remove the panties from their shelves. They could just as easily have decided to ignore our message.

This seriously made me feel awesome - yay! So nice to know our letters made a difference. I wasn't expecting much with the luck I've had dealing with other coorporations lately...

Ok ladies lets be honest here. You all know that sex can be used to get things in life. So why the big uproar over the obvious? Why do women insist on outwardly being offended over the power of sex over their partners?

BTW…I think the idea of a kids panties having this saying to be very disturbing.

There's a difference between can and should, Marcus. Was this a lesson we needed Wal-Mart to be teaching 12 year olds? Bleh.

I just love the trolling on this thread and the related one.

1. Censorship!
2. We are obsessed with trivialities. Obsessed, I tell you.
3. Panty-haters one and all. Clearly advocationg mass pantylessness.
4. Joyless malcontents.
5. Come on, can we please agree that all women essentially prostitute themselves and secretly lord over men with their pricey, pricey cunts? I mean, let's be honest

I'm waiting to see who accuses us of panty burning.

sgzax,

I agree this is a message that should not be sent to 12yo girls and I said I found it disturbing. However, there is a bit of hypocrisy here when you get to the legal age and the comments on the panties.

MV

Yes. Because women are whores. I got that.

pineapple,
I'm not sure what exactly to take from your post, especially the last bit. I do find the first part of your post interesting though. Are you saying that, in just the last few years, feminist groups havent strong-armed legislation they believed to be right even though the majority of people wouldnt agree? I would not say its a bad thing, it is good in my personal opinion, but you dont think its there at all? Im not sure why you took the democracy tack with me, I am not a supporter of pure democracy as I really dislike mob rule.

This is a tactic people all across the political and social spectrum use to voice their distaste with something, great, it worked.

Finally, the etymology of patriot? You describe me as having great patriotism, i never mentioned it, and then take a shot at the word, why? That is a very tired tactic, I appreciate the help youve given me in other posts but I dont understand this.

Dananddanica: Here's your strawman...
I dont know yet where I stand on this issue other than I dont like it being marketed and sold to young women, adults would be a different story. It is becoming so difficult to keep items (not specfically this one) that adults should have access to if they wish but also restrict them from children.

But we're talking about panties in the young adult section, marketed to teens. So the argument you are trying to make has nothing to do with what has just happened. You have changed the subject, and are now trying to get people to defend a position (protect teh children by restricting everyone!) that nobody proposed to begin with.

Even though the underwear is loathsome, I can't dismiss the censorship question out of hand.
It doesn't raise the same issues as government censorship, but I do think boycotts by private groups are censorship nonetheless (funny, this is usually the argument I make when the local fundies want something pulled off the TV). If a group of ultraconservatives started demanding Wal-Mart pull all women's wear that showed legs above the knee because it offended them, I don't think anyone here would support that.
And I definitely don't buy the idea that this proves "consumers are against it." Stuff consumers don't want usually doesn't require a boycott, just as genuinely unpopular TV shows vanish from the air without anyone having to complain to the sponsors.
On the other hand, I feel a product like this is a sort of Overton's window--if nobody protests, it nudges the boundary for what's acceptable (even if it doesn't sell) a little further in a bad direction. So I'm glad the panties were removed (so to speak).
And yes, I make the same points about censorship when feminists aren't involved. Living in the Bible belt, feminist protest didn't cross my path at all before the Internet.

sgzax,
it is unfortunate that you think that of yourself. that is not what i said at all.

if you boil it all down, we are all prostitutes in one way or another. we sell ourselves to someone else for the going rate.

Community standards are being negotiated all the time. Everybody speaks up and the chips settle where they may. Me expressing my opinion about a subject I find upsetting is not censorship. Me telling Wal-mart that I'm not shopping there because of their practices is not censorship. I haven't shopped at Wal-mart ever because of their business practices and they've flourished in spite of my disapproval.

The issue here IS NOT CENSORSHIP! It's people voicing their personal opinions and private business deciding to take action based upon those opinions. As members of our own communities it is our responsibility to take an active role and advocate for the things we feel are right.

If someone wants to take a book out of the library I will voice my opinion on that subject as well. Here's the kicker... neither me (the book advocate) nor my opposition (the book opponent) would be participating in censorship. I would feel confident that my opponent was wrong, and I would expect the community to back up my stand, but we would both be engaged in a free exchange of ideas.

I support the right of all people to voice their opinions, even if they're wrong. We can fight it out if necessary. That's what freedom means to me.

And in case anyone missed the point... it is crazy talk to tell people that they have to censor themselves as a safeguard against censorship.

Crazy crazy crazy.

Dananddanica, if you can name some recent legislation that feminists forced in with all the giant money and lobbying we have, then I'll retract my statement. Secondly, I'm glad you've gleaned something from my comments in the past, but I'm personally done giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your posts seem like the flipside of "I'm not a feminist, but..." They read like you're claiming to be feminist, and then you follow it up with something that chips away at what feminism is. You said you don't think you personally liked the underwear, but then followed that up with some gag-worthy tripe about thinking their being taken off the shelves might not be such a good thing, since we feminists might not represent the American people. Hence the democracy reference, and my allusion to the root of patriot is that it is the same as that of patriarchy. Which was, again, a reference to what seems to be your clinging to it. Most of your posts seem to exist to scold us somehow for the discussions, work, and/or activism that arises from the comments here, and it's getting old for me.

Ok ladies lets be honest here. You all know that sex can be used to get things in life. So why the big uproar over the obvious? Why do women insist on outwardly being offended over the power of sex over their partners?

Marcus- I fail to understand how this is not calling all women whores.

Also- if you had any knowledge about feminism, you would understand that a woman's sexuality is not a source of power, but is used against her, for example, through rape, forced prostitution, and sexual harassment.

Women who use sex to get the things they need do NOT have any power. If they did have any sort of power, they would be working in a comfortable office instead of on the street corner.

I suggest you go to visit "finally, a feminism 101 blog." The link is on your left under Jessica's blog roll.

Long time Feministing reader... first comment. (Well, technically I tried to comment once and my comment got lost somewhere.)

I read this site every day, so of course I read about the Walmart underwear issue, and then today while driving back to school through small town Bible Belt Florida I heard this on the radio (local top-40 station), that Walmart was pulling the underwear from the shelves and the news report mentioned Jessica and Feministing and quoted you and everything. They also had some satirical song about it to the tune of "Put on a Happy Face" but in this area, stuff like that is to be expected.

Just wanted to congratulate Jessica and Feministing on taking such quick action on this!

nbrice,

You have issues if you really believe what you just wrote. I am not saying that sex will enable you to become rich or powerful in business. I am talking about relationships. Like in everything in life there is give and take. Sex, at least in my relationship, is controlled by my partner. I do not force her to have it, but i am ready anytime she is. Therefore, sex is a power enabler in our relationship.

As far as business, i firmly believe the best person gets paid the best. is there sexism and racism in the business place still? Yes in some companies. Is it as bad as it was 10 or 20 yrs ago? No. All of the companies I have worked for have been very diverse companies and I have not witnessed sexual or racial harassment.

I apologize for typing so much in my last comment. Also - I didn't expect to receive responses filled with sarcasm, hostility and immaturity. I’ve been polite, and I mistakenly assumed that I would be extended the same courtesy. It’s difficult not to negatively judge people who supposedly represent a form of feminism when they show a complete lack of respect for other people. If you want more people to take you seriously then I suggest changing your attitude, because unfortunately it does make all feminists look bad in the process by acting that way. We may not agree, but it doesn’t mean that we can’t discuss this topic civilly.

Censorship can be defined as follows:

“Censorship is defined as the suppression or deletion of objectionable information, as determined by a censor.�
The “censor� in this case is Wal-Mart. Voicing your opinion is completely acceptable, but it is fallacious to imply that the consequences of your actions can be disentangled from the initiating action. If you protest against revealing clothing, for example, and a large corporation pulls that clothing from the shelves, you are supporting a form of censorship. There is a difference between supporting censorship and actually censoring something yourself – I never implied that anyone here was actually censoring anything themselves. Please attempt to understand the difference between both.

I hope to see responses that are somewhat more respectable than what I’ve read so far. I was debating over whether or not to start commenting at this website. I assumed that this was going to become a community where everyone could share their own thoughts.

notsolegallyblonde, that's so COOL!

*high five*

If someone wants to take a book out of the library I will voice my opinion on that subject as well. Here's the kicker... neither me (the book advocate) nor my opposition (the book opponent) would be participating in censorship.

I usually agree with you, sgzax, but I have a nit-pick here--because libraries (at least public ones) are state-run institutions, I take their decisions about what books to stock very seriously. When a public library decides to pull a book from its shelves, that is a form of censorship, because it is a representative of government deciding what is fit for its people to read.

Entropy, you are here to argue with feminists, not to participate in some thoughtful debate on censorship. This is apparent to everyone.

I wasn't actually being sarcastic with my suggestion. I was serious. Why don't you organize your own counter protest/letter writing operation to express the concern of like minded individuals? Why don't you tell Wal-Mart you want these panties back on the shelf because otherwise they are banning and censoring free speech?

Entropy, censorship is performed by governments, not by corporations. That doesn't mean that I never have a problem with what corporations decide to do, but it's not a freedom of speech issue.

I assumed that this was going to become a community where everyone could share their own thoughts.

It is. What it isn't and has never been is a commnity where everyone could share their thoughts without taking heat when their thoughts reflect cliched right-wing talking points that we, as feminists, have heard a hundred times before.

Entropy:

If this type of merchandise is unacceptable enough to be pulled from the shelves, what other products should be censored as well? Should the work of Nietzsche be censored, for example, because of his misogynistic tone that is embedded in his philosophical writing? Where do you draw the line, exactly?

I am a fully grown adult, and I don’t appreciate having complete strangers tell me what I can and cannot purchase, simply because they don’t like it themselves. Who among you thinks that you are qualified to decide for me what I can and cannot read? Or what clothing I may wear? Do ANY of you think you are qualified to make such decisions on my behalf?

Did you forget that the issue was underwear being marketed to teenagers? Did you forget that I have the right to express any opinion I like? Did you forget that Wal-Mart is an independent entity that makes it's own decisions about stocking merchandise?

I'm at a loss as to when this became about me taking away your copy of Nietzsche. I suppose you might say that protesting the marketing of sexually suggestive underwear to teens is the first step on the slippery slope toward Orwellian enslavement... but of course we both know that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy that educated people wouldn't dream of including in their debates.

So I'm at a bit of a loss. How about this? I'll use whatever tone I like when I write and people who want me to change can tell me so without fear that I'll try to censor their opinions. And if anyone comes to take away your books we'll all start the very necessary protest in response. In the meantime, when I see something upsetting I'm going to say so.

If I'm supposed to be afraid of this censorship bogeyman I have to admit that I'm not, or at least not enough to voluntarily silence myself.

Mistake in my post above... both of the first two paragraphs should be in italics, as they were both written by Entropy. Sorry if that makes my post unclear.

I have a nit-pick here--because libraries (at least public ones) are state-run institutions, I take their decisions about what books to stock very seriously. When a public library decides to pull a book from its shelves, that is a form of censorship, because it is a representative of government deciding what is fit for its people to read.

Good point, EG. I agree.

Hijack: I'd forgotten about that. Women being denied management positions because they cannot fill BS requirements like hoisting large sacks of dog food and putting it on the shelves. Costco and Home Depot are clever. They have these wonderful inventions called "forklifts" that can move entire pallets and crates. We're not talking about firefighters climbing the South Tower with a hundred pounds of gear, a mask, and fifty feet of hose here.

And besides that... It's actually not meant to be allowed. According to OSH we're not allowed to carry anything over 10kg without a trolley. I find trolleys annoying, but nonetheless I would've thought the US had similar health and safety laws?

You have issues if you really believe what you just wrote.

What? You mean the part where I quoted you? Stop contradicting yourself. Also- we aren't talking your partner doesn't want to have sex, that is your business. I think you have some nerve using that as an example as to why we "shouldn't be offended" by the underwear. I also wasn't talking about racism or sexism in the workplace. If you want to address that, find another posting. We are talking about pre-teens and teens being told by tiny but pervasive messages that their power lies between their legs rather than in their ambition, intelligence, or anything else that has nothing to do with their sexuality.

“Entropy, you are here to argue with feminists, not to participate in some thoughtful debate on censorship. This is apparent to everyone.�

I donate to Amnesty International, and regularly speak out against violations of women’s rights. I wouldn’t be so quick to judge me.

“It is. What it isn't and has never been is a commnity where everyone could share their thoughts without taking heat when their thoughts reflect cliched right-wing talking points that we, as feminists, have heard a hundred times before.�

Ad hominem.

“Entropy, censorship is performed by governments, not by corporations.�

Here is a wikipedia link that details the various types of corporate censorship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship

I don’t personally think that this is even up for debate. Censorship happens outside of the realm of governmental influence – how you choose to label that behavior is your own prerogative, but I will continue calling it “censorship�. I am inclined to believe that the majority of people agree with me on this definition.

Others here have rightfully progressed the debate past the semantic argument that a few others have presented. I will address these points from now on, assuming that the majority of people realize that this is indeed a form of censorship.

Well, since it is censorship – so what? One could argue that we censor potentially harmful things every day and most people have no problem with it. As I originally posted, in order to show that this type of clothing should be banned, you need to demonstrate that it is actually causing some type of harm to the people being exposed to it. Thus far, no one has even attempted to do this.

How many times have Feministing posters discussed the ramifications of the sexualization of young girls? It has been explained, on this thread and the related one, what the message of the underwear clearly is. They are marketed to girls and, whether or not they are purchased and worn, the message can often be internalized in a way that is harmful.

Entropy, you do not get to dictate the form that this conversation will take. And since I have already demonstrated that your first post was based entirely on a logical fallacy, you are certainly not the arbiter of valid arguments here. Your arguments are weak, your logic is flawed, and your opinions will be given only as much regard as they deserve. If people choose not to run, jump, and *demonstrate harm* for you it is because we have covered the subject before and aren't obligated to do feminist hand-holding for trollish newcomers.

If you really want to learn about the harm that misogynist language, acts, and goods do to women I advise you to quietly read for yourself and learn.

Entropy:
Ad hominem.

Here's a logic lesson. Ad hominem takes place when a person's argument is dismissed out of hand for reasons that have nothing to do with the argument and more to do with the character of the person.

That is not what happened here. What happened here is that EG pointed out that you made an argument that had been dealt with before, and that many people find that frustrating and the frustration will come out in their posts.

There's no point in which this can become a fallacy because EG was not making this point to refute your arguments, she was making this point to give you the heads up that you aren't allowed to dictate the responses of the people you choose to argue with.

Are panty thread trolls related to underpants gnomes?

Well, there is a difference between "trolling" and "disagreeing", although that line may be intentionally blurred for some people on here. I was looking for a debate about this event, and how it relates to our society, censorship, etc - apparently not many of you are interested in a rational discussion about this.

Good luck! :)

Entropy!! You never answered my question... I asked it twice!

"As far as business, i firmly believe the best person gets paid the best. "

Not true, even among exclusively men, or within the same organization. And the same goes for level of authority or promotions. Highest does not mean "the best."

Me: Hijack: I'd forgotten about that. Women being denied management positions because they cannot fill BS requirements like hoisting large sacks of dog food and putting it on the shelves. Costco and Home Depot are clever. They have these wonderful inventions called "forklifts" that can move entire pallets and crates. We're not talking about firefighters climbing the South Tower with a hundred pounds of gear, a mask, and fifty feet of hose here.

FenrisWolf: WTF? I regularly carry around 25kg (55lb) bags of cat litter to keep our cattery stocked up, and all the women at my clinic lug 15kg (33lbs) and 18kg (40lbs) bags of dog food onto and off the shelves, carry them for customers, etc. These are not big women. How big are Walmart's bags of food??

I should have done this first, but I was lazy. I couldn't find the long newspaper or magazine article I originally read awhile ago, but here is another link:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec04/walmart_7-5.html

Fifty pounds of dog food, and "consecutively" in this story, I cannot find the story that allegedly described requirements for promotion. More importantly, the woman in this story at least, had just had surgery.

[Let's be clear I am not talking smack about women: I myself (male) have no intention of ever making a job that required repetitive lifting and turning! with up to 50 (or even 75) to and from floor to shoulder height, like I see listed for delivery driver, stocking, or warehouse positions locally, because I wouldn't make it through a single day or make it back to work the next. Even nursing (my field) does not involve that on a regular basis. There are obese or immobile people, yes, but we are meant to work as a team, and with technological aids. Nor would I even consider being a lifeguard or fire fighter. They have those tough physical requirements for good reason - saving lives.]

FenrisWolf: And besides that... It's actually not meant to be allowed. According to OSH we're not allowed to carry anything over 10kg without a trolley. I find trolleys annoying, but nonetheless I would've thought the US had similar health and safety laws?

I don't know what the laws are, but that is certainly not what is practiced. (But as we can see, how much enforcement actually goes on in Wal-Mart? The US is supposed to have laws against racial and sexual discrimination as well. Someone with the money or power needs to break Wal-Mart, and I don't mean a union.) In any case I am referring to hoisting and lifting (to or from shelves), not transporting. A simple trolley won't help there.

And even if you all have the ability to do what you do, I'm sorry to hear it. Please be careful with your backs.

I just heard about this from a blog that would be labeled fairly right wing by people who make automatic assumptions based on religion. I just want to say, "THANK YOU" for getting this disgusting item pulled from the store. I don't care about political labels and religious classifications; this was fantastic.

Good job! (and you knuckle-heads who come here to argue on a thread where ANY person with half a brain would be applauding what these women did - Get a grip and give credit where credit is due.)

Hi, I found my way here from GoingBraless.net. I found the comments about censorship interesting. I'll have to think more about that one.

But regarding the item itself, after considering various interpretations and reading the comments here, I decided the most offensive part was the implication that it's cool for girls to rely on "Santa" (i.e. someone else) to provide what they want in life. You just wouldn't see something like that on boy's clothing.

So I wonder which would you (meaning anyone who feels like answering) think is worse to see on clothing for teen girls? A sexual message, or a sexist message? For instance, panties that just said "Who needs fancy toys?" in a suggestive location vs. the original message, all on one side, on shirt or even a purse.

I think that generally a sexual message directed at women is going to be a sexist message in some way.

"I think that generally a sexual message directed at women is going to be a sexist message in some way."

Or likely to offend, even if the message is by women, for women.

This is why I consider the discussion on empowerment or porn so interesting.

This is truely ridiculous...
Being in the Intimates business (not for Wal-Mart, but a different large retailer), and knowing a few of the WM staff, I can tell you for certain that they did not intentionally put anything bad in their stores. Hell.. these panties aren't even bad. Only somebody with a sick, perverted mind, would think these were bad.

Just a few questions and comments I would like to post.

-This program is not in the junior department. Despite what FOX news stated. After researching, this is in the Womens' Intimates department, not Juniors. Just because a larger junior may be able to fit in these, does not mean that they are targeted at children.

-I don't agree w/ Wal-Mart's decision to pull the product. If they gave into every offended person, they would not be able to sell anything. (One reason I think their sales are hurting is due to their unnessesary cooperation with these fanatics so far.)

-Just because somebody wanted to complain about something, probably because they were bored, the company and investors are eating millions. Please keep in mind that "Wal-mart" is not one person or "The Man." It is a company comprised of many investors, childrens' college funds, and employees with families to feed, etc... Every dollar made or spent affects these people.

Questions:
- Do you really think Wal-Mart or its employees are out to turn little girls into sluts?? That's a large statement to make.

- If these are "prostitute panties" What do you think about Victoria's Secret or the new Italian lines?
Would you rather there just be non-fashionable, plain white panties in this country instead??

This is truely ridiculous...
Being in the Intimates business (not for Wal-Mart, but a different large retailer), and knowing a few of the WM staff, I can tell you for certain that they did not intentionally put anything bad in their stores. Hell.. these panties aren't even bad. Only somebody with a sick, perverted mind, would think these were bad.

Just a few questions and comments I would like to post.

-This program is not in the junior department. Despite what FOX news stated. After researching, this is in the Womens' Intimates department, not Juniors. Just because a larger junior may be able to fit in these, does not mean that they are targeted at children.

-I don't agree w/ Wal-Mart's decision to pull the product. If they gave into every offended person, they would not be able to sell anything. (One reason I think their sales are hurting is due to their unnessesary cooperation with these fanatics so far.)

-Just because somebody wanted to complain about something, probably because they were bored, the company and investors are eating millions. Please keep in mind that "Wal-mart" is not one person or "The Man." It is a company comprised of many investors, childrens' college funds, and employees with families to feed, etc... Every dollar made or spent affects these people.

Questions:
- Do you really think Wal-Mart or its employees are out to turn little girls into sluts?? That's a large statement to make.

- If these are "prostitute panties" What do you think about Victoria's Secret or the new Italian lines?
Would you rather there just be non-fashionable, plain white panties in this country instead??

This is truely ridiculous...
Being in the Intimates business (not for Wal-Mart, but a different large retailer), and knowing a few of the WM staff, I can tell you for certain that they did not intentionally put anything bad in their stores. Hell.. these panties aren't even bad. Only somebody with a sick, perverted mind, would think these were bad.

Just a few questions and comments I would like to post.

-This program is not in the junior department. Despite what FOX news stated. After researching, this is in the Womens' Intimates department, not Juniors. Just because a larger junior may be able to fit in these, does not mean that they are targeted at children.

-I don't agree w/ Wal-Mart's decision to pull the product. If they gave into every offended person, they would not be able to sell anything. (One reason I think their sales are hurting is due to their unnessesary cooperation with these fanatics so far.)

-Just because somebody wanted to complain about something, probably because they were bored, the company and investors are eating millions. Please keep in mind that "Wal-mart" is not one person or "The Man." It is a company comprised of many investors, childrens' college funds, and employees with families to feed, etc... Every dollar made or spent affects these people.

Questions:
- Do you really think Wal-Mart or its employees are out to turn little girls into sluts?? That's a large statement to make.

- If these are "prostitute panties" What do you think about Victoria's Secret or the new Italian lines?
Would you rather there just be non-fashionable, plain white panties in this country instead??

This is truely ridiculous...
Being in the Intimates business (not for Wal-Mart, but a different large retailer), and knowing a few of the WM staff, I can tell you for certain that they did not intentionally put anything bad in their stores. Hell.. these panties aren't even bad. Only somebody with a sick, perverted mind, would think these were bad.

Just a few questions and comments I would like to post.

-This program is not in the junior department. Despite what FOX news stated. After researching, this is in the Womens' Intimates department, not Juniors. Just because a larger junior may be able to fit in these, does not mean that they are targeted at children.

-I don't agree w/ Wal-Mart's decision to pull the product. If they gave into every offended person, they would not be able to sell anything. (One reason I think their sales are hurting is due to their unnessesary cooperation with these fanatics so far.)

-Just because somebody wanted to complain about something, probably because they were bored, the company and investors are eating millions. Please keep in mind that "Wal-mart" is not one person or "The Man." It is a company comprised of many investors, childrens' college funds, and employees with families to feed, etc... Every dollar made or spent affects these people.

Questions:
- Do you really think Wal-Mart or its employees are out to turn little girls into sluts?? That's a large statement to make.

- If these are "prostitute panties" What do you think about Victoria's Secret or the new Italian lines?
Would you rather there just be non-fashionable, plain white panties in this country instead??

"Do you really think Wal-Mart or its employees are out to turn little girls into sluts??"

No, but that was never the point, if you've been reading.

"If these are 'prostitute panties' What do you think about Victoria's Secret or the new Italian lines? "

Last month, my wife brought home a copy of the Victoria's Secret catalog with what I assume was a previous resident's name in the address, and left in on the table. I looked through it once, then threw it away. But it was nice. Reminded me of the early 1980s era Playboy, when they still pretended to have class.

"Would you rather there just be non-fashionable, plain white panties in this country instead??"

TMI alert:

I'm for choice, but plain, loose fitting cotton panties with no ornamentation on my wife are my favorite. Hanes for Women, I believe. Even if she doesn't take them off, the plain hem does not cause undue friction and irritation. The texture also makes for an interesting dental dam.

(Ok, so what, i lied about the "concerned consumer" part. But Wal-Mart responds better to the business model and my feedback may have more weight if they believe they'd lose a costumer rather than if i notified them that i don't shop at Wal-Mart to begin with...)

This is in reference to 'nerdalert's letter to Wal-Mart.

How did you find the panties in the Jr. section if you don't shop there??

Mr. Male, if somebody were offended by your wife's plain, loose fitting cotton panties w/ no ornamentation and sent a letter to Wal-Mart, do you think that your wife would be happy when they pulled the product?
I just think that it's ridiculous to make such false accusations and ruin things for other people. I'm sure there are many women that would have bought these. WM supplies to EVERYBODY. Not just YOU.

"I don't know the key to success, but I know the key isn't to please everybody."

Only somebody with a sick, perverted mind, would think these were bad.

Enlighten us then. How does your healthy, pristine mind interpret such a phrase?

-Just because somebody wanted to complain about something, probably because they were bored, the company and investors are eating millions. Please keep in mind that "Wal-mart" is not one person or "The Man." It is a company comprised of many investors, childrens' college funds, and employees with families to feed, etc... Every dollar made or spent affects these people.

OMG We're such horrible people! Did you hear that everyone? Wal-Mart is going to go out of business because teh crazy feminazis told it to pull some panties!

But seriously, we know Wal-Mart is not "one person". We do know that it is the biggest retailer in the world, the Walton family is worth billions of dollars and the company is currently faced with the greatest class-action lawsuit in history for sex discrimination. Surely asking it to pull ONE product is a relatively small thing to ask?

Do you really think Wal-Mart or its employees are out to turn little girls into sluts?? That's a large statement to make.

I think Wal-Mart is out to make money. If they can do that by teaching little girls that their bodies are credit cards, they'll do just that. However, if they know/think that they'll be faced with a boycott and bad publicity, they won't.

I just think that it's ridiculous to make such false accusations and ruin things for other people. I'm sure there are many women that would have bought these. WM supplies to EVERYBODY. Not just YOU.

Who's life has been ruined? Are you kidding? Wal-Mart sells THOUSANDS of products- I doubt this will make a dent in their overall operations. They are OK! Are the women/girls who wanted them really suffering because they can't buy these at Wal-Mart? Are they suffering any more than REAL child prostitutes?

"Mr. Male, if somebody were offended by your wife's plain, loose fitting cotton panties w/ no ornamentation and sent a letter to Wal-Mart, do you think that your wife would be happy when they pulled the product?"

Honestly, my wife would not care. My wife has little interest in fashion, and has very bland taste in clothing. I believe she went with Hanes because they were plain and cheap, or to emulate my own Hanes men's underwear.

I would go with whatever else she bought that was less likely to offend, because I have never decided on her underwear. I stay out of the girl and women's underwear departments for obvious reasons.

Another thing I would not allow my daughter to wear are the girly colored thongs displayed on the main aisles on my way to the DVD and electronics section of my local store.

"WM supplies to EVERYBODY. Not just YOU."

Precisely. Which is why, "Don't like, don't buy" or "Stay out of Wal-Mart" does not apply. The mere existence of the message causes offense.

"Precisely. Which is why, "Don't like, don't buy" or "Stay out of Wal-Mart" does not apply. The mere existence of the message causes offense."

The mere existence of the message causes offense in .1% of people. IMO, political correctness is ruining this country. It's gotten to the point of being so ridiculous, that everybody gets offended and pissed off at everything. Sometimes it's in the best interest of certain subjects to not exercise your freedom of speech and keep some things to yourself.

"The mere existence of the message causes offense in .1% of people. "

Perhaps you are missing the bigger context of culture perpetuating an atmosphere of women/sex as commodities which was the real problem. Feminists are not concerned only with these cheap looking panties that would likely bleed in the washer and wear through in short period of time only to be disposed of.

Yes, PC creates some odd situations, as I noted when Christmas trees were dubbed "holiday trees" to avoid offending non-Christians. Then Muslim, Jewish and Hindu groups came together to make the public announcement that they were not offended at all. The entire situation could have been prevented if someone had simply asked them first.

Same with products like these. I'm sure you know what focus groups and test marketing are. It is not the feminists' fault that the (Chinese?) manufacturer, local distributor, or Wal-Mart actually went nationwide with this, allegedly losing millions.

Wal-Mart sure puts a lot into defending themselves against employee accusations of sexual discrimination, which could cause a lot of ill-will and really lose millions. On the other hand, Wal-Mart, despite all their clout didn't bother to defend these panties, did they? I wonder why not. Was not selling these panties an even clearer business decision than not discriminating against female employees?

Do you really believe these would have been that successful? Would it be a wise investment to buy what I can and sell them on ebay?

"Sometimes it's in the best interest of certain subjects to not exercise your freedom of speech and keep some things to yourself."

Precisely. We call that tact or good manners. There are things I will never discuss on this site. They aren't holding me down.

"Only somebody with a sick, perverted mind, would think these were bad."

"Enlighten us then. How does your healthy, pristine mind interpret such a phrase?"

It is a panty with a phrase on it. Would you think this were bad if they made shirts that stated the same?? Because they do...

"I think Wal-Mart is out to make money. If they can do that by teaching little girls that their bodies are credit cards, they'll do just that. However, if they know/think that they'll be faced with a boycott and bad publicity, they won't."

-Retailers supply demand. I really don't think that if some woman, or girl for that matter wore these, that she would start screwing the general population for money. If good parenting were put into place, nobody should have to worry about this. I really don't see anybody becoming a prostitute from seeing or wearing these panties. If they did, I would have to say it was their destiny.

"Who's life has been ruined? Are you kidding? Wal-Mart sells THOUSANDS of products- I doubt this will make a dent in their overall operations. They are OK! Are the women/girls who wanted them really suffering because they can't buy these at Wal-Mart? Are they suffering any more than REAL child prostitutes? "

- I guarantee MANY products will be pulled (many that shouldn't have to be.) Businesses cannot risk being defamed by people that may misinterpret the message or by people that just like to bicker.

It is a panty with a phrase on it. Would you think this were bad if they made shirts that stated the same?? Because they do...

So it is just a series of words devoid of any meaning or impact. Hmmm. Interesting. And I would like to see these shirts you speak of before I make a judgment....

-Retailers supply demand. I really don't think that if some woman, or girl for that matter wore these, that she would start screwing the general population for money. If good parenting were put into place, nobody should have to worry about this. I really don't see anybody becoming a prostitute from seeing or wearing these panties. If they did, I would have to say it was their destiny.

It isn't that someone will become a prostitute from seeing this. It is simply that a girl will get the message that her body is a commodity to be sold. It spreads a myth that she can and should use it to get whatever she wants.

- I guarantee MANY products will be pulled (many that shouldn't have to be.) Businesses cannot risk being defamed by people that may misinterpret the message or by people that just like to bicker.

Then don't sell sexist, obviously degrading products! If someone is offended by a business practice or product he or she has every right to boycott and/or complain.

"Would you think this were bad if they made shirts that stated the same?? Because they do..."

"Skank" fashion has been discussed. Like I said, it is not about these panties. And it's not about girls *choosing* to become prostitutes. It's about people being conditioned to think the average woman is so. Believing "no" means "yes" perhaps? Believing a woman owes a man sex for a meal or marriage? Believing a woman needs to remain "pure" till marriage, or at least until she meets me? Calling women "bitches" and "hos" just for being born with vaginas? Believing an average woman likes or would like sex like a porn actress, if only she would give me a chance or let herself go, instead of being so uptight?

Did your parents educate you this way? No? Then how did these perceptions become so popular and widespread, much less believed?

Webbess,

Businesses have entire departments dedicated to customer feedback for a reason. I work in a customer relations department of a small-medium sized UK business, and what happened here is NOT censorship.

When the business I work in creates a product, designs advertisements, and generally interacts with the public, every aspect of this is carefully monitored prior to release. We even have headed paper with the company logo omitted for my department, because "we do things properly" could be seen as an inappropriate message for a department that often deals with complaints!

When we receive negative feedback on a product, we check the product itself and determine whether we personally agree with the assessment, usually several team members will do this together. We will then check the testing and feedback from test buyers in case anything was missed. Next, we will check and see how many similar complaints we have received. A large number of complaints means that, regardless of our own assessment, there IS a problem. In that case, we will forward reports and recommend that the product either be removed or amended, and will apologise to those that wrote in, thanking them for their time and feedback. The recommendation gets passed up the line to those in charge of marketting and creating our products, and they choose to act on, or not act on, our suggestion; sometimes their decision is vetoed by someone higher up. That is not censorship; it is sensible business practices in action.

And I fail to see how "who needs credit cards" written across the crotch of a pair of panties could be inoffensive to all but a bunch of perverts. The statement is an attempt at humour, and the suggestiveness is an integral part of this. "who needs credit cards" would not be offensive on, say, the front of a t-shirt, but it also wouldn't be funny or even have any real meaning, because the point of the joke is that the message is focussed on sex. The next part of the joke is the rest of the message on the rear, so it's a sort-of "haha, you thought I meant that I'm a slut, but really I just love presents!" Without the overtones of prostitution, the entire thing is just a not-very-amusing statement, so it's quite obvious that the suggestive element was intentional.

Gah! Sorry, Imeant McLuvin, not Webbess... read comments to quickly, got names switched around.

Because of sites like yours and because of media attention more exposure has been brought to these panties then would have ever been noticed by teen girls themselves. Maybe if parents acted likes parents are supposed to, panties like these would mean nothing to the girls that see them. I'm sick and tired of parents blaming their childrens problems on society but then have no interaction or control over their children and are not willing to take the time to explain what is right or wrong.

Because of sites like yours and because of media attention more exposure has been brought to these panties then would have ever been noticed by teen girls themselves. Maybe if parents acted likes parents are supposed to, panties like these would mean nothing to the girls that see them. I'm sick and tired of parents blaming their childrens problems on society but then have no interaction or control over their children and are not willing to take the time to explain what is right or wrong.

There is no good "ism".